I am getting my butt handed to me on a daily basis!

[HopelessTrader]

One thing that helped me immensely was a loss that I had in 2010. I was holding oil during the gulf spill. I thought the market was overreacting so I stayed in. I kept bleeding for a few days. It even messed with my sleep. I lost 25% of the account or so.

At that point I begin to get a deep realization that the market does not care one bit about your account. The market doesn't care if you have other problems to deal with in life. The market doesn't even care if you went hungry because you lost all your money. I'll say it in other words to drive a point, "The market doesn't give a shit about you."


“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” - Sun Tzu

 

[zincsulfate]

Quote from SimpleTrades:

I suggest you focus on that statement. It certainly applies to me. The harder I try to make it happen, the worse I do.

Sometimes I have the same feeling. Later, I know you can do better with a peace of mind.

 

[jeredlbb]

FrenchFry,

How is your progress?

Jered

 

[jeredlbb]

OS, FF,

Would you say bar 65 was a XB or a Sym since bar 63's low has not been penetrated? (I show bar 64 as a FBP)

 

[frenchfry]

Quote from jeredlbb:

OS, FF,

Would you say bar 65 was a XB or a Sym since bar 63's low has not been penetrated? (I show bar 64 as a FBP)

Let's see...

Bar 63 ends the previous lateral which started at bar 59. Agree?

Removing the gap between bar 63 and 64 it looks like bar 64 forms a FBP. Bar 65 is still in the boundaries/shadows of bar 63 so bar 65 in the log is "lat3". Do you agree?

 

[outsource100]

Quote from jeredlbb:

FrenchFry,

How is your progress?

Jered

Nowhere.

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from noregrets:

This is insane gibberish, and is typical of what Jack has written in this thread. I have to wonder if he is just laughing his a** off as he writes this stuff, knowing that someone somewhere will actually think he's serious.

Word. Gibberish, but don't take my word for it, see if there's anything here that constitutes public training to become a profitable trader.

Don't see any codes so there isn't information to be used appropriately the way Jack describes? deciphers? institutes? provides? teaches?

How about another lesson?

Search Scottd, and that's all you need to learn about Jack Hershey or anything he has to say. Become a Fidelity client, and you'll find that there is no way to recreate anything he's theorized or claimed, since volume on SPX is not provided by that broker anymore. And if Jack's alleged 60+ Sharpe ratio mention is here, trust me, it does not exist in no uncertain terms and Jack does not have it or this would be common knowledge available through some sort of database and he'd've posted it already.

 

[Lojanica]

Try pairs trading at first or spreads without leverage. The movement is usually soft enough you'll be unlikely to blow up. If you stick with it long enough you'll figure out some tactics on your own to make money.

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from Lojanica:

Try pairs trading at first or spreads without leverage. The movement is usually soft enough you'll be unlikely to blow up. If you stick with it long enough you'll figure out some tactics on your own to make money.

I have made so much money pairs trading, I don't care what anyone has to say about the theory, and that means I won't elaborate on it in any particular detail that is quantitative, and neither does Jack, which is why we have more than 80 pages of garbanzo, pig latin gibberish covering most of the sections in this thread.

So don't talk about it again, please.

Ironically, I'm sure Jack might feel the same, and it's not that Jack Hershey might not have something, but that his insanity does not allow him to articulate whatever he's done in his lifetime to live for as long as he has or to explain any of the methodology he claims to have and trade on.

(Also, pairs trading is actually directional, not a spread trade... this actually gives me entertainment and a laugh when those illogical ideas are presented to me).

If your pairs are either nearly perfectly negatively or positively correlated, you can do a pairs trade. Perfect negative correlation is the only one I look for, and whether this is the appropriate place, this is about the only quantitative definition I've put out because it's so necessary and will save everyone a lot of money.

There is no pairs trade opportunity unless correlations are greater than 0.9 or less than -0.9.

Look for that, and you'll see that there are no pairs trades in the equities market right now and I've yet to find someone who has posted their correlations that are high enough for me to consider it a pairs trade. (Daily scales only, then look at their correlations. Intraday pairs trades do not manifest because that wasn't the theoretical intent of the original theory).

 

[Lojanica]

I didn't suggest that pairs and spreads are the same just that it is an area worth investigation.

Ciao