Hershey's Equity thread

[gms]

Quote from oddiduro:

If you do not have the vocabulary to understand the instrutions of the teacher, drop the class, and move on to something on your level.

Hang on a sec, I have a rather good vocabulary. I don't think vocabulary is the issue. One of the issues is the cryptic phrasing and incompleteness of thought in Jack's writing, not to be confused with matters vocabulary. By 'incompleteness of thought', I don't mean anything derogatory; I allude to the penchant for people to not spell out completely and specifically what they are actually thinking; there's a tendency to refer in writing to thoughts and references still contained in the writer's head but not expressed on paper. This makes it difficult to understand exactly what the writer means (that's why God made Editors). I'll give you an example: "The cat jumped over the ball and toy, but stopped to sniff it". The problem in this writing is, what did the writer mean by "it"? A writer would have written, "The cat jumped over the ball and toy, but stopped to sniff the toy" just to assure that he is understood.

I'll give another example for cryptic phrasing. Here's what I've just written above, this time emulating Jack's style of prose:

"Some here on ET go forward when they should hold back. Vocabulary is a thing for me. Vocabulary is not in a place for this thread. I see in your posts a problem of crypticness, which we will call CTN. CTN is not absent, but present also is a derailing of the thought process translating the mental state of pictures and ideas to actual ouput. This is not derogatory to you. This is a limitation. This limitation stops the many from expression equated to their thought. The correlation of thought/ouput is make-believe and existing only in them, not in output. This stops them from the actual expression (i.e., Editors, LOL). When they are stopped from the actual expression-output in this way, others may think the cat has sniffed one of two things but they cannot accurately describe which one thing it wasn't. You have to go to the place where careful execution prompts careful output. This is a problem here on ET."

See what I mean?

 

[bubba7]

I am trying to get to a place to be able to handle this phenomena.

By doing a run up on Trend Fader I learned a great deal. to exhaustively review the "what for" of Trend Fader was a real downer for me. But i am oriented to him now and I understand the space he operates out of and why he uses "claim". He is in a place where life has beaten him up. He tells how in his posts.

I post facts he sees "claims" He thinks I want to prove something to him because his SOP is to survive instead of live. He is at risk in all directions; he tells us. Anything he sees is not real it is all is provisional. The further a person is from him (think concentric circles). Friends, broker records, top traders he knows what goes beyond that either could be powerful and exemplary or in his case "ridiculous". His reaction the Vagasoul leaving 30,000K on the table was unbelievable and impossible to comprehend. He is "bigboy" to moderators who admonish his behavior. The bigboy picture I get has children's clothes on; he is not buying cigarettes in a dimly lit nightclub in NYC.

Trendy has started in again. She is baiting again. She may be a professional person; she says she is. So now I say "who cares". This is new to me. When she first did her thing I felt some compassion for her difficult orientation to stuff.

nonsense is new here and hasn't gotten up to speed. He won't because he is not a person who deals with stuff intellectually. He and electron do not have the capability to keep focused and persevere. THey do not make intellectual points at all usually and when they do they talk only to beginners. People judging me and calling me a fraud like Baggerlord and a whole cast of others here, are just fucked.

I am not a fraud and it just happens my amateur passion for making money in the financial industry is a lifetime avocation. It is simply that I have spent a lifetime enjoying all that I do. I am a transparent person it turns out. ET is teaching me about people that I am unfamiliar with. Believe me, I have had priceless experiences with other people; now I get to see another side of the people coin.

I am thankful the threads were started for me. Thank you. I do recognize the courtesies you extend to me and those who caution me on health stuff I appreciate too.

I am coping with typing. I look at the keyboard always. And I just pop along hitting the wooden keys. Sometimes the cursors like to go to another sentence. They jump around a lot and I do not often know which one is taking notes from me. if their is aspell checker any where but on Word I have not seen it yet. I will never learn to put paper in scanners. I have cards that i use to defete the computer from telling me my posts are too big and I have secret ways of getting from the scanner to the Browse.. thing. But do not play chess with me. Do not deal to me single deck blackjack. My forte as you all know is the biology of growing healthy foods. I know trace mineralization cold. Three of my friends (all idiot savants) in this are all dead now. They took it with them and someone will replace them in guiness I am sure.

I am a blackboard man and not linear. So I am working around that to be linear here.

So we have the fluff out of the way. I am going to get flamed and all it represents is the limitations of others, mostly. Flamers are asking rhetorical questions as far as I am concerned. flamers will call me very negative things. they have beliefs that are a product of their lives so they see what they see. I am not an ignore type. I no longer care about being able to help them; that is new for me. I am not used to turning my back onsomeone in trouble. I may learn from them why they are the way they are.

I always go to where the person is to bring him to where I see the potential. I believe this is the best way.

I will move some stuff over here from the fuck up inandlong created and closed.

 

[jem]

jack I have read some very intersting stuff from you so this is not a putdown. GMS that was one of the best defenses of ones position I have seen on this board and it was entertaining.

 

[bubba7]

08-19-03 09:22 AM
Overall Viewpoint
The Attachment is in color and shows the whole system that I use. I work systemmically and construe a system to be: a structure, a process and the results the system achieves.

The QA ROI file is named as a Quality Assurance Return on Investment file.

QA starts with the manner in which you choose the stocks you use. A universe is selected and it is kept current weekly on the weekend.

Today there are many information sources. The red funnel on the left shows you some convenient ways to get a universe. I call this culling. the principle used is the have very high quality stocks that do what we need them to do.

The blue box, Data Gathering is a daily task that you do to appraise the chosen stocks that you culled into a universe. Short lists emerge.

Before 2000 I used Easy scan in TC2000 Ver 3.0. That is no longer supported and it's successor cannot process the maths that Ver 3.0 could. We will use a website as a substitute for this.

The purple analysis box hows the processing of the four short lists into the cycle for making money. This is a prioritization process.

I did this for several years as a series of four emails: before open, 15 min into open, and two more within the first two hours.

The analysis lists were posted and they had additional columns for monitoring and trading.

On the right you see the process. We post the stocks before they BO (This was named independantly by several people then I formalized it.) We buy before the Price moves. We hold until the cycle flaws appear. We sell at the peaking of price after volume peaks.

Set up two 3 ring binders. One will have the five parts of QA and ROI under these two main parts. This is where you put stuff I post. I will transfer it to the journal when we have handled it here with Q and A and then I reduce it to clear, concise and crisp expository writing.

The second binder will last a month and it will be filled with the days of the month. I do everything with time saving forms. You will have all of these. If you know someone else who needs to be a millionaire get them to work with you once in a while and duplicate what you do. This brings out differences in understanding and gives both of you a self correcting mechanism.

As Q's come up I will work to understand where you are. To get this to work I have to go to where you are and support your efforts to get to where I am. As we do this I will explain the why's of it.

I use the approach on the attachment because it chooses high qualty stocks, the stocks do what I want hem to and it connects me to the money source in a way that is most efficient for taking money out of the market and putting it into my capital base. The method is limited. I do not hold more than 100,000 shares of any stock at any time. This is not an OPM thing; OPM is not effective for making money it turns out.

Attachment: qa-roi.doc
This has been downloaded 77 time(s).

 

[jack hershey]

.

 

[bubba7]

QA and ROI are my foundations. The over all chart will arrive from a different computer soon.

Quality Assurance is achieved in the stock selection of your universe.

Historically I have done it according to the resourses available. For now we need to just operate in an up to date manner.

I believe a high quality stock universe is composed of two characteristics:

1. top notch stocks from any sector.

2. Stocks that are repeatable for making money.

ROI.


I use the compound interest formula as the basis of making money. It has three variables and I rank them in order of importance based up on mathematical principles.

In the formula, this is the order of importance:

1. Time

2. Profit per cycle

3. Starting capital.

You can easily see how prone this is to being fraudulant.

 

[bubba7]

We have about 16,000 stocks to trade.

I have found that choosing from these 16,000 and making a small universe is all that you need. we do an add and delete on the universe weekly on the weekends.

For everyone, it is true that your method of making money dictates the stocks you choose.

Only an absence of method gives you the right to choose any stock or, to put it another way, if you accept tips from someone as part of your orientation, you then get the consequences of using tips.

Contemporarily, There are many culling systems. Use Mr. Market's as an overkill example. Trend fader used underkill as he chose PG. someone can add the red thingy's to get you to those places, if they will.

I recommend using the IBD approach and I clearly state that I was a participant in Dailygraphs BETA and the beginnings of the IBD institutional investment software support system by invitation.

Here is why. Corporations have a quality determined by performance. The measure of performance is profits and comes down to profits per share.

IBD handles this. They rank performance. It is straight down the middle for me.by ranking performance in percentiles, every corporation is assessed by the same standard and they all stand in a row. 99 to 1 as categoies. I know this is not 100 categories and they miss by one. This is flamer stuff right off if the flamer is astute enough. No flamers here would have picked that up. the designation by IBD in capitals of EPS is the percentile designation.

I have been criticised lately for not giving reading references. my critique did not offer help either, just mouthed off.

So read the first seven chapters of a 10 buck book entitled "How to Make Money in Stocks" Someone can add a red thingy to get people to reviews and point of sale. I make no money from the sales and I generally keep a dozen on hand to give to people who may want to read them. Buy several copies so you can offer them to others if you will please.

EPS levels are set by various users. I set the level by how long it makes my universe list. We are dealing pragmatically here. We need a universe. We need to make money in ridiculous money velocities.

The second standard of top notch stocks is their price performance compared to other stocks.

This is not rocket science.

In logic for streamlining purposes you figure out how to do stuff in a way that is excellent and no less, ever.

I will find away for measuring and achieving outstanding price performance. I use IBD's RS. This is a percentile also. again the same standard measures all stocks and lines them up in a row.

With two measures and their scores we logically AND these together. Both criteria have to be met.

Trend fader thinks , and he says, spelling the name incorrectly two different eways at different times, that O.Neil is "cute". this is negative financial talk from trend fader.

I feel this is excellent stuff and further it is the only way to go.

These two major monumental pillars start us down the road to make money.

 

[bubba7]

I have nothing new to tell anyone here. The know it alls have things to tell you maybe. They think they need to keep stuff secret.

I will shape up soon and be more in the groove. I just had to get past the fact that there are some sick puppies here.

To sort your universe you need to shape it for convenience as well. Convenience is a very helpful thing to keep discipline and not waste time.

1. We will not trade stocks under 10 dollars (unless they are tenured.) I will break all the rules only if stock is tenured.

2. We will trade a range of floats only: 5 to 30 million shares.

3. We will only trade liquid stocks. I may have more stringent rules than you. I do not like to trade more than 10% of the daily volume. Opposing this is a cap of 100,000 shares max. We will set a lower average 60 day volume at an agreeable level and my vote is 600,000 right off the blocks.
these rules cover it and are noted in the chapters of the reading I gave you above.

Note what page the Rally Attempt Analysis is on when you come to it. I recollect page 59 in an older edition.

 

[DT-waw]

Hey Hershey fans,

You want to be good at trading.
Let's assume you want to be good at sex.
Would you talk to a woman for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week?
Would you read books every single evening for 6 months?

Hell No!
Listen to WDGann advice...

Quote from WGDann:

Is it like having sex with a fine girl...

You just do do do...

bang bang bang... working your ass off without thinking.... but going bang bang bang...

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16239&perpage=10&pagenumber=2

 

[oddiduro]

Quote from gms:

Hang on a sec, I have a rather good vocabulary. I don't think vocabulary is the issue. One of the issues is the cryptic phrasing and incompleteness of thought in Jack's writing, not to be confused with matters vocabulary. By 'incompleteness of thought', I don't mean anything derogatory; I allude to the penchant for people to not spell out completely and specifically what they are actually thinking; there's a tendency to refer in writing to thoughts and references still contained in the writer's head but not expressed on paper. This makes it difficult to understand exactly what the writer means (that's why God made Editors). I'll give you an example: "The cat jumped over the ball and toy, but stopped to sniff it". The problem in this writing is, what did the writer mean by "it"? A writer would have written, "The cat jumped over the ball and toy, but stopped to sniff the toy" just to assure that he is understood.

I'll give another example for cryptic phrasing. Here's what I've just written above, this time emulating Jack's style of prose:

"Some here on ET go forward when they should hold back. Vocabulary is a thing for me. Vocabulary is not in a place for this thread. I see in your posts a problem of crypticness, which we will call CTN. CTN is not absent, but present also is a derailing of the thought process translating the mental state of pictures and ideas to actual ouput. This is not derogatory to you. This is a limitation. This limitation stops the many from expression equated to their thought. The correlation of thought/ouput is make-believe and existing only in them, not in output. This stops them from the actual expression (i.e., Editors, LOL). When they are stopped from the actual expression-output in this way, others may think the cat has sniffed one of two things but they cannot accurately describe which one thing it wasn't. You have to go to the place where careful execution prompts careful output. This is a problem here on ET."

See what I mean?

The problem with your theory is that is Jack were incomprehensible, then NO ONE would understand him. Yet, it would seem that there are few who do. Herein lies a flaw.

I don't see a problem with your paragraph. I undersood it just fine.

So maybe instead of vocabulary, I should have used the word comprehension.

Information density is a problem for many, the school systems are not what they used to be.