A Proposed Debate: SCT vs. CO

H

hypostomus

Ladies, Gentlemen, et al. of ET, I propose a solemn and thoughtful debate between the proponents of Seamless Continuous Trading and the exponents of the Conventional Orthodoxy. If the community will agree, I will undertake to defend the CO, if Jack will espouse the case of SCT. I propose that each of us has a second, in my case I would ask Thunderdog, and it would be seemly, methinks, if Spydertader agreed to be Jack's second. The purpose of the second would be to cry foul to the panel of ET judges at large, so the principals in the debate would not have to sully themselves with cavilling.

In this I would be pleased to step aside if another were selected by CO traders in my stead.

As to rules, I am open to all suggestions, but I would start with:

civility (respect being perhaps too much to ask)

brevity (you know who I mean here)

clarity

directness

quantitative support

proper orthography

no sock puppets (a great sacrifice on my part to prove sincerity).

I would leave it to the seconds to point out perceived infractions of the above rules by the principals. ET at large would be encouraged to pose questions of the debaters, so long as they observed the rules of the debate. I would hope that the debate would be leisurely, so as to permit thoughtful, measured responses. For my own part, my time will be limited in the next month as I make far more money working than I make trading, and necessity commands.

Being mindful of the adage never to mud wrestle with a pig, because the pig likes it too much, I will understand if Jack declines.

Warmest regards to all, H. Plecostomus.
 
Good luck with the brevity part...

Now obviously Jack believes he has a system/methodology that works, Woodie is of the same opinion that his CCI system works
Which doesn't explain why so many traders fail miserably at both

So I hope the CO argument will have a greater emphasis on trade craft as opposed to methodology as the foundation for success
 
I propose as Spyder proposed before, a trading contest head-to-head, toe-to-toe on a set date and whoever has the most bucks by end of day win.
 
Quote from nkhoi:

I propose as Spyder proposed before, a trading contest head-to-head, toe-to-toe on a set date and whoever has the most bucks by end of day win.
More...
Play money???
That doesn't test anything.. besides, the only contest Jack ever entered he lost 24% and still came up with excuses, he is not likely to expose himself again
 
Nkhoi, with all due respect, the notion of a trading contest with me as the CO's protagonist is absurd. While I consider myself intellectually capable of defending the CO, by no means would I consider myself its avatar here. To pretend to be such would be as presumptuous (if presumptuous presumes, does post-sumptuous get indigestion? A strange language, English!) as, as, as...well...Jack! I would consider doing such a thing if I were guaranteed absolute anonymity, and if I could statistically assure the best odds with respect to equal account sizes for ES and NQ allowing equivalent opportunity contracts, as I would have to trade the latter. I would even trade publicly, as long as I could wear a burka. But clearly the issue is not about mere crass money, it is an intellectual one, and to the extent that intellectuals are eggheads, it is an issue of ego. Jack has hurtfully and condescendingly labelled me "a one car piker", which is demonstrably, if painfully, true, as you can see from my many posted execution reports. But I take the moral high ground, as that is one car more than Jack has ever posted. In any event, I believe I can assert with some confidence that I make more money working than Jack does, even allowing for the annual increase in social security and his allowance from Liz. Be all this as it may, I WILL at some future time accept your challange. But not now. Besides, how can you compare the thrill that I have making $50 per car with Jack's dull pleasure at making $500?
 
I have a feeling that ET is tired of 'talk-the-talk' it wants to see some action, we could choose to count the number of ticks instead. You also could consult with your fast friend thunder to see whether he tilts toward talk or action, but if you prefer more talk then pay me no mind. :)
 
A Debate is still just subjective talk

Won't an audited broker's statement from SCT supporters be more objective ?
 
Quote from simki:

A Debate is still just subjective talk

Won't an audited broker's statement from SCT supporters be more objective ?
More...
Certainly would... but you have more chance of finding a unicorn these days
 
Well certainly if there is no interest, and the SCT side does not respond, then I won't bother. It was just an idea.

AM, I could get any number of people here with whom I correspond privately to attest to my sincerity, maturity and sadism, but they would probably be embarrassed to do so, as my imaginary personae are quite different from the reality. I cast no pearls before swine in public. But your point about defining terms is well taken, as is the defintion of the CO as a philosophy, not a system. I had intended to define the CO upon acceptance of the debate invitation. I shall make a start now, subject to Jack's eventual alterations, as it is his term, not mine. More properly I would refer to it as Classical TA.

Let me approach the definition of the CO obliquely to start. Its collective wisdom resides in these books which are the sole surviving trading books on my shelf:

Achelis
Babcock
Colby
Douglas
Elder
Farley
Graifer & Schumacher
Hayden
Katz & McCormick
Kaufman
Mamis
Murphy
Neill
Shabacker
Shimizu
Smith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top