To each his own, I guess. Jack claims to be able to consistently make anywhere from 4% to 7% daily on his account equity. He also claims to regularly make 3 times the daily range in ES. Tell me this, kt. Do you actually believe these cartoon numbers? Remember, we are not referring to occasional outsized performance. We are talking about typical performance.
Without a doubt. I respect your perspective about Jack Td, but it is quite feasible with consistency. For me specifically, I am not a "discretionary" trader. I am a systematic "roll your own" ATS trader utilizing quite a bit of sophisticated techniques which were initially inspired via jack's contributions. I have a lot of respect for him. There are aspects of his "teaching model" I do disagree with though. Just the same, I know he has methodical reason for it.
Thunderdog - Did you really mean 4% - 7% daily on his account equity? Seems improbable as that will translate to > 1000% annual returns. If you have $100 in account equity and make $4 per day (4%) * ~250 trading days == $1000 per year!
Btw Td, When he refers to "account equity" are you assuming he's referring to conventional definition. This is possible... then again it could be in a different context. This is an example where comprehending jack's words can get fuzzy. Familiarity with the theory of logic; the meaning of language representation (any language), and good mental imagery is essential for the underlying message, imo. Someone who has studied computer language theory, would also probably understand what I'm referring to.
When you can regularly make the kinds of returns that he claims to make on a consistent basis, I will bow before you after giving you 3 days to draw a crowd. Promise.
I will never try to impress anyone Td, I work hard to be more succesful so that I can help others, deserving of the attention and are wanting to help themselves. I believe Jack is doing the same.
I suggest another possiblity to the answer of this question. I don't suppose to be an expert at what I'm going to mention, but I can tell you I do have a great deal of knowledge and experience in the area in question. Lingquistics. What virtually no one realizes is that they don't know how they talk or even understand what they hear. The process of verbal communication is in fact a hypnotic process. Communication involves altered states. Much research and study was done on this in the 1970's. What was found is that language comes in different sizes, ie. levels of precision. I noted elsewhere in another thread that a writer suggested it best to agree on defintions. This is impossible to do at a very deep accurate level. Most communication is based on an assumed agreement of meaning and in that is lost about 99% of accurate, precise meaning. Jack is rarely talking cryptically, if indeed he ever is. He is just speaking in a way that is totally unabiguous. Unfortunately, most of us never recognize it. Let me give you an example. Channels. Most of us refer to upper and lower channel lines. This becomes ambiguous unless we add more data to what we are describing (ie is it support or resistance to which we refer). Jack uses the terms "left" and "right". Many people blast him for being hard to understand and using non-standard terms. The fact is using left and right is 100% unambiguous. Jack's level of precision is so far above most anyone else on Elite that the incongruency creates a great deal of frustration. If you want to understand Jack just pay attention in a literal way and play along. You learn much much faster in a spirit of humor than in any other way.