Quote from electron:
Exits are a work in progress? Looks like a helluva of a complete method to me... Well, that indeed says a lot either about Jack's teaching talent or perhaps simply about how complete his methods are. I guess, it's both.
electron, dbphoenix and inandlong, and everyone else, my thoughts:
"exits are a work in progress" means that nwb is working on it, doesn't it? You know, simply because a method is being taught, and being taught in progressive realtime at that, does not mean that everyone is up to speed at the same moment with material, nor that everyone is as skillful as the next at that same moment in time. It certainly doesn't mean that the method is incomplete, nor that it's all been taught within a few weeks. You gotta know that one size does not fit all. Like a classroom where the teacher instructs but also needs to focus on individuals, and does so progressively day by day, so is Jack's method of teaching, as I see it spelled out progressively in his posts to one and the other.
Funny, so many posts in this forum about how you can't become a trader in a short period of time usually have this analogy to make their point: "Can't teach someone to be a doctor in one day, how do you expect to learn to be a trader in one day? It's taken me years." You've come across those, right? Yet here in the above referenced post we read that there coexists a duplicitous criteria that trading - if the teacher doesn't teach it in a short period of time - or if the student doesn't grasp it in a short time - is not a "complete" method. Come again, how long does it take to teach someone to be a doctor? Are we to toss out medical courses if the students aren't doctors after a few weeks because the material must be incomplete or the instructors incompetent in teaching skills? If a trading education cannot be conveyed in a short time, or if a student's individual capabilities require time to grasp, absorb and master the material thus requiring a longer educational term, how does that in any stretch of reasoning necessarily reflect on whether the material being taught in a relatively short time is "complete" or not?
Otherwise, if we hold up the mirror to ET or any other trading forum, we need to wonder why it is that there are significant numbers of long time posters still asking questions and seeking/exploring concepts/ideas/methods/strategies et al regarding other poster's methods or that of the trading industry's many acclaimed "gurus". These are questions and posts that go way beyond a few weeks. What is it? Are they still looking for ways to improve? Yes. Are they looking for ways to be consistently profitable? Of course. But why - after so many posts and threads, day after day, month after month, year after year, from others and gurus???? Gee whiz shouldn't they already have gotten to that point in their abilities? This is in essence the same critique assessed on grob/hershey/bubba.
After thought about the matter, I have concluded that the "give-it-to-me-in-one-page-otherwise-it's-not-a-system" criteria is sheer nonsense when one considers that virtually every trading book ever published needs more than a page to discuss and explain it's strategies, in fact, it takes up the whole book - plus more books. And did you stop reading/learning about trading your preferred strategies after reading your first page of your first book, or even after reading the whole book, or did you find yourselves reading yet even more books after that first book? If you've ever read more than one page about anything relative to your system/method/strategies, or ever wrote more than one post/page explaining something to someone, then you're among the last persons to insist that a system's every iota must be explainable in just one page, in my opinion.
The validity of a trading system is not a question equating the term of educational process. You've taken judging a book by its cover and advanced it into judging a book by how many pages it contains. How lilliputian. I've never attended a class in my life where an entire complete course is taught on one page. Or in one book. Or in one day. I can just imagine the questions and criticisms that would arise out of a one page method. "But you didn't cover what happens when this or that...", "but it doesn't say what should I do whenever this or that...", "it didn't cover what should I be looking for when...", "you left out what should be my consideration of..." and so on, ad nauseam. Then what, flip-flop and critique the teacher because the educational process is too short? But at least then you have a better valid basis for judging that the education was incomplete. Fitting it all on one page is rather immaterial to what really matters.
Nwb posted what really matters vis a vis his return, giving credit to grob109. Inandlong admirably steps up and recognizes the feat by congratulating him. Others may not have had an opportunity to publicly state so, but what do I read but a post that dismisses the fact that while nwb admits his exits need working on, he nonetheless accomplished a pretty neat return despite that "handicap", and simultaneously disregards the portent of future returns coming from nwb's learning from Jack, harping instead on an inference he deduces from nwb's "work in progress" statement about his weak point and from that, as i wrote above, makes this 2+2=5 connection about Jack. Give me a break. Well, everyone's given the privilege to say pretty much what they want to express, but here's what I would've said to nwb instead: "Nwb, a method that derives a 24% monthly return is a valid method in my book, and your 7% return in a week is even better. Um, where can I sit in and observe the class?"
