You chose to define "better" as higher net worth. I was specifically talking about trading. Their sharpes and % return are better. So here we have your first limitation. You refuse to believe that someone could have a better sharpe's or % return than PTJ and BK. Why is that? They have peaked out what is possible in the markets? Do you think they have accomplished something that no one else in history has done, or will ever do with regards to their sharpe's or % return? TNG
Dr. Deco, I've been meaning to ask... is the CBOT's building named after you? Because I've heard rumors it's going to be renamed after Jack.
Quite correct, TNG. I owe you an apology. I'm sorry I was rude. Playful, but rude nonetheless. However, your questions and comments to T6 were naive. Honestly, they were. Please don't ask me why because you should know why. Admittedly, discussions about Jack do not bring out my best behavior. (The same applies to discussions about Larry Williams or Jake Bernstein, disputing the existence of trends, and so on.) I was caught up in the moment. Once again, my apologies.
I do think the market wizards are way better traders because they've been able to do what they've done both in size and consistently over time. Not to mention that, through their trading, they've piled up way more chips (net worth). Or isn't making money the bottom line? Nope, never said that (about Sharpe or % return). Show me where I did. Sorry but I have no desire to continue an exchange with someone who can't keep details straight and then calls his mistake my "first limitation." How about you get back to studying SCT? I honestly believe it suits you.
Although my reply was to you... My commentary about seeing many traders state for fact that the method does not work when in fact they have not used the method applies to them and not to you after you've make it clear what's bugging you. Further, I have not read any post by you that made similar like claims that Jack's method does not work. Therefore, to be clear, I don't side with either side of the camp. Getting to my point again. Your own poll you started about this issue currently reflects about 92 traders that saids they've used the method for at least 6 months and have not been profitable. However, not one single proof to verified such a claim. Not one single trading day with a P/L statement. No matter how you look at it...that poll clearly represents BELIEFS and bias... Nothing factual about the poll until at least one trader steps forward with verifiable proof the claim they made is true. Also, I could care less if Jack claims to make 30x the daily range in a single trading day every trading day of the year. To constant challenge something you feel strongly isn't possible... Why continue with the war as if magically he will change his mind and state something different that's closer to reality. Isn't it a waste of your time and energy especially since its been grating your nerves for a very long time? Yes...you are right...you are not the one making the claim and it seems (am I right) that this is obviously more than just his trade methodology??? However, many Jack bashers are making the claim that his method does not work when in fact they've never used nor learned the method (review your poll). I will repeat to you once again in case you didn't read it. Both sides of the camp are making many claims as fact and both sides of the camp getting caught up with a lot of other stuff that grates their nerves that has nothing to do with the method itself... Thus, I do not disagree with your premise. However, your premise works on both sides of the street that are making claims. In addition, I do not (have not) seen you address those traders making claims it doesn't work without any verifiable proof nor do I expect you to do such considering there's other stuff about Jack that grates your nerves. That's my point and if you can't see that...who's unreasonable??? P.S. There are things about many traders here at ET that grates my nerves...including things about Jack. I just don't have the time and energy to go after them for many months or longer. Mark
Sure no harm done at all. Thank you for appologizing. I should have clarified. I absolutely do not know anyone who has a higher net worth than PTJ or BK. From what I read in the Market Wizards book, however, only Ed Seykota comes close in terms of % return or sharpe's. If you judge how good a trader is by his net worth, then no, I don't know anyone better than those guys. I don't use that as my measuring stick, however, and in the circles I am familiar with, it's all about sharpe's first, and % returns second. I think that's pretty standard in the trading world, in my experience. Over and over and over again people don't believe in what these guys do, I'm used to it. What was astonishing to me is the fact that there are much more people like them around than I thought. There are people out there making good money. REALLY good money. What you guys choose to believe is obviously your perogative. The point I was trying to make with T6's is that what you believe is possible in the markets is the cap you are putting on your potential. Jack has talked about this many times (in very indirect ways) and that's one of the things I adamantly agree with. If I remember correctly Ed Seykota on his first banner year made around %3000 or something. Someone will undoubtably correct me if I'm wrong. Whatever his number is, can you imagine if he thought that it was only possible to make $2,000 a year trading? I'm not talking exestential space crap here either, i'm talking about real, psychological mental blocks. I've always looked at setting "ridiculous" goals and then figuring out how to get them, not capping myself off at what I believe is what the "majority" are doing. The fist step of thinking this way is admitting that it's possible. TNG
I should not need to address such criticisms because it should be very easy for Jack's supporters to prove them wrong with their own evidence. I will let Jack's supporters support Jack. I pick my battles, and only go for the most obvious can't-miss targets with the neon "kick me" sign.
I'm sorry to have put words in your mouth. I was merely making a conclusion based on what you said. The reaon why I brought that up is because as I understand the hedge fund world, managers are often paid a very, very good rate of return on mediocre performance. It's obviously hard to make high % returns on that kind of money, which is why sharpe's is a good stardardized method. I believe that running a hedge fund requires skills that are more important than trading. You still have not answered my questions. And now you are telling me you no longer wish to discuss this. I guess I've either threatened you somehow or taken this in a direction you don't wish to pursue. I assumed that someone who posts as much as you do about Jack and his methods wanted to talk about them. It seems that you are only interested in bashing him, or having someone post their blotters for you. I guess since I am not going to post my blotter for you, and you don't want to discuss Jack or his methods with me, I will stop posting to you on this thread. TNG
I don't know how much he made in any given year, although his returns were indeed astounding. Don't forget that he made much of his money during the hyperinflationary one-way market of the '70s which was astonishingly friendly to trend traders. I have no doubt that he is an extremely capable trader, but I suspect that he will not be duplicating his best returns any time soon. Even so, just to be clear, Jack's premise of typically making 4-7% per day adds up to much more than 3,000% annualized with any reasonable amount of compounding. Just to exaggerate to make my point, if he compounded daily (in other words, if he adjusted his risk size each day to reflect the new balance of his growing account), then a 4% daily return over 250 trading days would amount to over 18,000% annually. And that 4% is Jack's lower limit. At 7%, his annual return would well exceed 22,000%. TNG, I know a lot of money can be made in the markets. But let's be reasonable, shall we?