BE DO HAVE and Jack Hershey vs Objective Reality

The major reason of misunderstanding BE->DO->HAVE is laziness. People do not realize that DO requires many,many,many hours of hardwork...
 
Quote from Trader666:

No, the gotcha's on you!

Because in Jack's "tomorrow's paper today" there's no mention of any of that garbage so I tested only what Jack wrote and it bombed out bigtime.

And with "rockets," the first thing I tested was again, exactly what Jack wrote. I even quoted it and Jack said those conditions were all that was needed. But when it bombed, you guys keep piling on condition after condition, after the fact... one of your many obfuscation techniques.
life is tough, isn't it.
I feel really sorry for your experience. Please tell me more detail.
 
Quote from Trader666:

That's right... and at the time you wrote "tomorrow's paper today" you never dreamed anyone would be able to backtest it so you crowed about it like it was the theory of relativity and posted cryptic messages about Boolean algebra, keeping your followers begging and drooling for more.

Similarly, in a rare moment of clarity, you accidently posted enough details about "rockets" to backtest them. Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that they're gold plated turds too. You can try to obfuscate as much as you like and you're the grand wizard of obfuscation I must admit. But any logical person will see through it.

Which makes more sense? Are my backtest results more consistent with the fact that you've never posted any proof whatsoever of your wild claims, or are they more consistent with you being a market wizard... who just so happens to also be a serial internet poster who did -24% in a trading contest?

P.S. I used Spyder's code to backtest the 0 to 7 turn.
why don't you post the codes? so that we can examine it and find out where did it go wrong? maybe your code is bad? your know the GIGO stuff?
 
Quote from tazman:

So post yesterday, it must have been $50K plus right?!?! You are indeed great ballsie! (Even without posting you know you will always have my respect.... :) )

So why do Hershey church members always have $10,000 - $99,000 days and turn $10,000 into $15M within a year and '3 guys going to make $45M in a year'? Doesn't anyone ever lose money or just do a shitty $300 day now and then?

BE DO HAVE vs BE HERE NOW!
Wow, I am impressed by your intimate knowledge of the church sanctuary. You must have read every post of the Hershey threads.

another seasoned basher with a new handle?
 
Quote from Trader666:

As I said in the post you replied to, I used Spyder's code and if you're at all familiar with this stuff, you'd know that Spyder has lots of Hershey code on the Wealthlab website. I am familiar with GIGO, which is why I'm not going to give you any more input here... have a nice life, loser.

Quote from makosgu:

So why is our test of the material a Pass and yours a Fail??? A car manual doesn't show you how to apply pressure to the gas pedal. Is the car broken because you read the manual completely and did what it says and yet it did not get you to point B, or would you say that the manual is incomplete? Some have attempted to fill in the remaining programming details. So what's common sense for some of us may possibly not be so common sense for others. If a crazy person then walks up to the car and tells you to put the keys in the ignition, turn on the car, buckle your safety belt, step on the brake, put the car in drive, and then apply pressure to the gas pedal while controlling the steering wheel so that you can begin your way to point B, was the instruction set an obfuscation technique that does not address why the car is at point A (ie. negative EQ curve). You are at point A. The car manual tells you about the instruments in the car that assist in getting to point B. However, there are things that the manual takes for granted (ie. it's not idiot proof). It won't tell you how to make a right hand turn nor tell you what is your left and what is your right. In other words, the car manual is not the whole picture for getting to point B. If this is obfuscation, that what is not?
 
I especially like this quote from an ongoing Hershey inspired fantasy:



"Spotted the FTT at 09:45, no problem, but completely lost the plot after 10:20. Every FTT seemed to fizzle out, which in hindsight turned out to be a very volatile LTR traverse. The 5 min seemed “too coarse” due to the high volatility, and I ended up widening my long channel 5 times. I found the Gaussians to be particularly difficult to follow. After each FTT I saw a BO of the current RTL but then b2b reappeared. Again with hindsight this looks very clear but it seemed highly confusing at the time."

The Hershey fantasy is that losing trades are called "mistakes" and with enough whatever they will eventually be eliminated. Objective reality dictates that uncertainty is always present in trading. Identical looking situations with respect to similar "data sets" ,as JH terms them, will not always produce the same result. In a binary activity,i.e., win/lose,in/out,long/short this shortcoming must be dealt with by resorting to probabilities. Probabilities are something which Hershey denies. He asserts that the market can be known with certainty. New traders seem to agree. Seasoned traders know better. Another chasm not to be bridged by US to THEM.
 
Quote from Tums:

why don't you post the codes? so that we can examine it and find out where did it go wrong? maybe your code is bad? your know the GIGO stuff?

Quote from Trader666:

...I am familiar with GIGO, which is why I'm not going to give you any more input here... have a nice life, loser.
it took ebulldog and Jack, and T6's reply to prompt me for a second read, then I was rolling on the floor laughing.
 
Back
Top