What do u do to stick to your rules?

But don't you know that Jack's been behind almost everything great that's happened in this country? Here he is with a young Thomas Edison... who he mentored and whispered ideas to, resulting in 1000+ patents. Which is nothing compared to what he's accomplished in the trading world. If you don't believe me, just ask him.

<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2421577>

 

This thread went down the tubes when Jack started posting. Anyway, Jack's system has not made any money during the time I've followed it.

I liked the comment from another thread, to yell, "VOLUME DOESN'T WORK!" as you're driving by his house.

 

Thanks for the response, but...

1)Do you think this is an explanation? Please remember my question was do you think Spider ever demonstrated SCT as you describe it?

2)Nkhoi is providing several numbers to the same contact. Will any contact demonstrate SCT? Why won't Nkhoi demonstrate SCT – he's been doing it for years! Remember if brokers could trade they wouldn't be brokers. So are you seriously suggesting these guys would rather manage salesmen or sell and order-take than apply x3 for themselves? Are these your best “traders”? To be clear, my question was who are your best trading examples?

3)Jack, one accidental print in the dim distant past is the best you can come up with? I told you I can produce fantastic 2-week prints from a trader my ex. put right back to square one as it was exposed as a lucky patch. Let's see a day with 50+trades instead of one trend move.

4)Where can I pick up Putting the Pieces Together?

5)All of the persons you refer to in these corporations don't trade for a living – they sell ideas to generate commissions and you provide a valuable tool for that purpose. It's another theory along with Gann and Elliot and indicators that suck up the naïve.

6)I commend you for putting so much work into your ring binders and passing it forward. It is great that the IR guys meet up and assist each other but so far progress doesn't appear to be happening. If it does happen and SCT works anywhere close to what you describe in your dreams, then I will have no hesitation in supporting yours and their efforts.

Here's a tale my ex. told me and it explains why I think your rule-based trading is causing the failure of these traders and results in everyone shying away from demonstrating SCT.

Karate was held in awe for decades as the world most devastating fighting art. The karate masters explained the science: the shortest, fastest moves are a straight live between 2 points. Other styles employ hooks and round kicks and these slower arcs are easier to see and block and have less power.

The karate master employs Chi power allowing him to kill with one punch – even punching through concrete. Many drills ensure the correct form and power are developed but real world fighting is avoided as karate is so lethal.

In the 70's after much taunting 7 karate masters went to Taiwan for 7 full contact fights against Thai boxers. The event was televised and held in a stadium. It was karate's scientific theory meeting reality and the result was 7 KO's with a total stand up fighting time of 2 minutes. Not one karate master could last more than a few seconds.

Many brokers bet on the karate masters. They had the science; the drills; the theory. They practiced with each other pretending it was for real. It was “Do” - a way of life, like SCT in many ways.

You are rigid in your outlook. You categorize other traders because you see the world in a rule based format. The arts recognize many paths to great performances, but you see others as not electing to learn or participate with the markets because your rules impose limitations on the ability to understand reality.

Your IR bootcamp thread is full of rules but you are in denial. Just look at what happens when the guys can't find a channel line or whatever – it's back to Jack's or Spider's rules. You would rather protect a mod's time than assist bewildered traders who conduct incorrect approaches to practice drills and etch bad habits into their differentiated minds.

Would you for one minute suggest a CEO could trade SCT? Do you realize how funny that is?

Back to the point of the thread. The more rules you make the more you are likely to sabotage your trading unless those rules are sound and allow you to progress beyond them.

Poor discipline is simply your minds way of rebelling against what it does not believe in. Trading should evolve beyond rules to participation with the flow of the market, and Jack and I agree on this point. But I believe Jack's students prove every day on ET how confused and self defeated they are.

Nkhoi – would you like to demonstrate SCT for just one day? I know a CEO would be too preoccupied to demonstrate it, even though his brokerage would attract new clients like bee's to honey and the tremendous commissions generated by SCT would put their profits through the roof and it would be a profound act of paying it forward that would have Barrons and the WSJ front paging them.

When all you have are ring binders full of rules about a theory of market participation, it's best to stay out of the full contact ring, eh?

 

This is my last post on this thread as I have talked out the OP's topic.

Rules become a joy you move beyond and even forget OR a form of self destruction like SCT. It depends on their proven value but inside you will know the truth.

Jack, your response will fascinate me, as always. The trump card is yours as I think you'll need it again

You always make me smile and for that I'm truly grateful.

 

Jack will respond in Jacks own way which is to say he will not respond in any way but to lead us astray

 

Thanks for expressing your views.

Spyder is a profound example of:

1. completing the PVT then SCT.

2. Using the medical model to instruct others for five years.

3. Maintaining a colleagual relationship with those who are repeating his example to pass it forward to others.

I recommended that you get in touch with the administrators of various corporations that support the use of the paradigm. These are business people who spent money, hired staff, recoded their platforms, and offer technical advice from these staff as a way of realigning their businesses to take advantage of the potential and arriving customer base.

As you continue to refine the focus of your inquiry, you are now asking for something that hasn't been done in five years. In similar cycles, before ET was in existance, we did do what you are now focussed upon. Those records are all found where the "demonstrations" occurred. You have the same focus as in the past and each time it comes down to us providing a "demonstration" to you in one form or other that you have thought up.

Today, many others make the same resquests as part of a "due dilligence" they need before they will do anything for themselves.

This is how a person falls into one camp or the other. Some do the work and others observe. The ratio is pretty fixed although there is some drift towards a less extreme condition. when the two camps are compared to the standardof the literature, Those of us who are in the "do the work" camp see that the medical model is a good one for us to follow. We did it for five years and there were two major results: many people succeeded and many people have made it their life's distraction to be detractors by using their observation standards.

We have never asked for a quid pro quo except to ask that they use the medical model to pass it forward. We seem to be mole proof at this time since there is no substitute for doing the work.

Apparently it is difficult to understand, from the outside, the difference between rule sets and processes. You came close when you suggested I was OT by posting in this thread whose topic is rules and whose focus is "sticking" or "sticking to".

"Sticking to rules" comes up for a lot of people. It is a symptom of the conditions, circumstances and situation a rule based trader must come face to face with.

The mind and body work together. The senses, whether, visual, oral or kinesthetic communicate to the mind which "protects" a person. At some point, there is a conscious focus that surfaces from what was previously just a kinesthetic "feeling". A subtle feeling of "danger". It is anxiety, fear and anger in some form or other and it may be very small at first but because it is NOT addresses, it finally makes it to a behavioral statement.

See the OP of this thread. Tara is participating in the thread and has made her contribution. She asked a question and it was answered.

I usually list about ten books to read with reference to this pandemic that occurs as potential traders come into trading, learn failure and then depart.

What can a person do to not continue down the path?

The mind is telling the trader he is in danger. The mind is trying to extract the trader from this region of danger he has gotten into.

As stated recently in two different articles in the Economist, there are consequences of a person placing themselves in danger. One was on disruption and the other on monkeys outperforming traders or humans in a common context of the OP.

What do you do to stick to your rules says: "What do you do to stay in a dangerous region (in the opinion of your mind's "survival" mechanism)?

The mind's survival mechanism has two choices for getting out of danger; they are Fight or Flight. Both are on one side of the spectrum of life's possibilities that ranges from danger to safety and comfort and satisfaction.

As the difficulty of sticking to rules goes from one level to another (using the mind's reasoning to make these moves), there comes a time that "disruption" can be quantified. The Rutgers people checked it out by measuring the disruption with respect to two things: Analysis and intuition. The monkey/human testers did the same.

as you read and digest the underlying of the two independent articales, you get to see the common factor involved; it is "prediction" based on induction.

People doing prediction based on induction all have minds. Their minds do the same thing as a consequence. People all get the idea, sooner or later that they can't do what they are trying to do. As they continue and disruption occurs to analysis and to intuition, then their peformance goes to a place where what they try to do has the "opposite" result on the bottom line. They fail simply because the mind takes them to survival by eliminating trading as a place they can continue to occupy on the future.

It is a great deal of fun to read about and see the results of irrational processes that people do to try to make money for their survival. I introduce into the learning process a tool to measure this. the tool can be used by the person to come to understand what isgoing on for him in a whole spectrum of circumstances.

Then he can use the tool, once calibrated personally by the above, to give him a reading of how well his mind is functioning as he trades. The machine and its display simply tells him if he is rational or not.

In trading, a trader cannot be in a fight or flee situation, circumstance, or condition at any time. There can be no anxiety, fear or anger while using the mind to trade successfully.

Reading makes a good example of how rational a process, over time, can be done.

Ask any learning reader to look at a chart and see if she/he can "read" it. the child does not get close to the screen, she simply says it is "going". She reads it as going and going one way or another. Invariably, she is vertically oriented and would have to be told that reading screens is a left or right process.

Price moving left is how money is made and when it stops moving left, profits are taken and the reference of left/right is changed. A fifth grader will jump on this and "Just Do IT".

If a person had to stop there and not go any further in the learning process, they could make a child's book of 10 pages and it would be like Run, Dick, Run. It would repeat the two ideas over and over until Dick got to the end of the book.

LooK,Dick, look, price is moving left. two pages later:

Look, Dick, look, price stopped moving left.

Jane says, "Dick, take your profits."

Jane says, " Dick, can I make the new line?"

Dick says, "No Jane, I need to do it myself because I have to use the new line to read the chart by myself."

Jane says, " I just wanted to help since I have to pay bills from the next profits so we can go to the beach to run on the sand again".

"I think I'll add some contracts so we can play on the beach all night." Dick says.

Jane winks at Dick and tells him to make the line thicker and longer into the future bacause thats how she likes it too.

Jane left and Dick knew she was right.

Next chapter: Dick and Jane see peaks and troughs on the beach: one seems to follow another.

Moral: Pictures are worth a thousand words , lol....

 

We need a reality check.

Jack has a long internet history. And what he did then bears a striking resemblance to what he's done during his time on ET. Let's take a look at some golden oldies from about a decade ago.

Here's a mentoring "demonstration." Some people from Harvard came up empty handed after trying to decipher Jack's "teachings" for more than a year, starting in 1999.
Look at posts # 1 and 2 here:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc..._frm/thread/e21428336d0962ed/4088dacd0b5143e7

Now see how they felt over a year later (look familiar?):

...I don't understand why it's not possible to verify such a successful futures trading system if it is based on objective rules. My own attempts to automate the system have been frustrated at every turn by an enormous problem that is apparently only resolvable by gut instinct... I have spent a great deal of time respectfully reading and thinking about what you have written, but mostly what I feel now is frustration.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc..._frm/thread/ccc785d53a418f8a/ad6210f80809669d

Here's a great "demonstration" where Jack tried to obfuscate his way out of his sinking stock picks that lost $22,000:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc...d/thread/981513b3a003f259/2db2e88d1407af42?hl

Here's a great "demonstration" where Jack LOST 24% in a trading contest and unsuccessfully tried to obfuscate his way out of it:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc...a927db8ba840?hl=en&lnk=st&q=hershey+loses+24#

 

Thanks Trader666,

It seems that if you aren't careful, history will repeat itself! :eek:

Just ... LOL at that nonsense.

P.S. Keep the fantasy going jack, I'm sure Neoxx is going to be setting up laptop trading for refugees any day now.

 

LOL at Neoxx "passing it on!"

Jack's excuses are getting lamer and lamer... referring to "demonstrations" in the days before ET, when in reality he played the same pied piper game with people then that he does now, as I showed with the links. What a joke.

Come on Jack, if your "methods" really are all you claim, where's the press coverage? The Hershey foundations and Hershey hospitals?

Why didn't you turn $10 thousand into $1 million in 100 days and post updates on ET like you promised your former IBD group you would?

Was your -24% in the trading contest one of the demonstrations you referred to?

 

What do u do to stick to your rules?

1. Place hammer on desk.
2. When rule is broken hit head with hammer.
3. Repeat as necessary.