I apologize ahead for the length of this post, in answering the points dbphoenix raised, I found I couldn't contain my answer to one page...
Quote from dbphoenix:
"his" method (which turns out to be only a variation of what Ian Woodward and Wm O'Neil have been teaching for years), he never was able to explain just exactly what his method was in a manner that was easily understood. Is this ease of understanding a requirement? Of course not.
OK. Done. Agreed. Jack being easy to comprehend or not officially no longer an issue.
I suppose you're right that not only Jack but everything anybody puts forth is "only a variation". However, Jack does bring to the process his particular mathematics of assessing stock cycles, for example, which is not taught by O'Neil, and there's the use of volume "dry up" as the leading indicator for entries and "peaking volume" for exits. He's got a few other techniques he's discussed that sound foreign to me, that is, haven't seen them so stated anywhere else yet.
But when someone drifts from thread to thread, telling everyone with whom he comes in contact that they are amateurs, don't know what they're doing, are charlatans, have no idea how markets work, etc., usually with a variety of four+-letter words thrown in, all the while being unable to provide a clear explanation of what he considers to be the one true way (which one could be forgiven for expecting him to be able to do after 40 years), much less provide examples, much less point to even one person who is making money off the method, then one could perhaps be forgiven for believing that Jack was/is most likely blowing smoke up everybody's skirt.
The putdown remarks in his posts I would agree with you are not very professional. Not that the following serves to justify the content of those posts, but what of all the critics' posts that run in the same manner? I can't recall if you've personally written any of them or not, but let's not make the issue be to what extent or degree of putdown is a qualifier because that would only be used to justify others' and villianize Jack's. I think more fairly we can agree that a putdown is a putdown, no matter who fires one off, and regardless if one uses vulgar language or mudslinging or whatever.
But as for no one making money with Jack's stuff, there are those who have publicly stated that they make money with Jack's methods, that's not even a debatable question anymore.
And those people must've gotten their learning of Jack's stuff from Jack's posts. So though difficult to read through, they must be comprehensible to some, no? At least, understandable to some that seem to be doing well with it. But we did agree that this is no longer an issue.
Even Mr. Market was more forthcoming and behaved better.
So unfortunately then there
is the qualifier of one arrogance, putdown and answer-avoidance over someone else's. That's not right.
If you think MM's multitude of arrogant posts or his belittling putdowns and answer-avoidance, of which I was subject to, was exemplorary of forthcomingness and behavior over that of Jack's percentage of fewer such posts to overall postings, of which I was also subject to, that's in the eyes of the reader. I'm not going to become a Supreme Court Justice about this and try to rule on to what degree one is more objectionable (as in 'second degree arrogance' vs what constitutes 'first degree arrogance'), although I would concede that some content may prove more shocking, for lack of a better word, to any individual, again, in their eyes, than others. Both MM's and Jack's putdowns are demonstrably something. But if there isn't any true basis for a putdown other than society's norm of permitting humorous sarcasm, such as if someone gets riled and fires back, or if someone uses such content as a ploy, I can't always accurately assess their intent or motivation. But every poster does has the ability to control what he submits finally, and that helps me make a call as to how to regard the poster or that post. I far appreciate those posts that speak to trading methods
If what nwb has explained is the core of Jack's equity approach, then it is in fact a viable strategy for trading equities. It has been such for many years. Based on what nwb has written, however, it's hardly Jack's. In fact, I see nothing original in it at all. If Jack has developed a superior methodology rather than simply borrowed it from others, I have yet to see it.
I agree with you, that's the thing I get out of nwb's post, as you wrote, that this is a viable stock trading method. Why then, after getting that point, switch the topic to whether Jack claims authorship of the methods he's teaching, or if you've seen evidence that convinces you whether Jack has or has not developed a superior methodology? I miss the point of doing that. It doesn't detract from it being a "viable trading method". What is superior anyway? If nwb had said 10% instead of 7% would that be superior? Technically it would be. Would you want him to have said 20%? Then wouldn't 30% be superior to 20%? Where does this end? If Jack's methodology racked 30% a month, I'd call that superior. I'd call 20% a month superior too. Even 10% a month compounds to over 300% a year. That's not bad either. In a broader sense, any method that consistently helps the trader achieve profitable returns is "superior", wouldn't you agree?
What i think is "superior" about it is the ability to get into a trade
before the price breaks out.
I believe Jack has in fact deduced a few interesting observations and put them together, and that in fact does make him the "author", technically speaking, insofar as LBR can also be credited as author with a strategy that incorporates the already established EMA and ADX, or Keith Fitschen is the author of Aberration, even though that apparently makes use of Bollinger bands. (In fact, even the name "Holy Grail" isn't original. Come to think of it, she once wrote that the strategy was named "Holy Grail" because it was "the closest thing" she found to it. God forbid Jack ever made a statement like that, you guys would never ever stop tearing at him).
Oh, I do get from reading his posts that Jack very, very strongly believes in the methods he's been using and thinks it's rather darn better than most. But so do others about their methods. That's not really an issue for you, is it?
As for teaching someone to be a trader in a day, or even an afternoon, I can see that, if by that one means that the student is expected to learn a particular methodology. Learning the methodology is not the problem. LBR's "Holy Grail", for example, can be learned in an hour or less.
This is a rehash of the same immaterial "must be on one page" issue again. Jack's methods are not taught in an hour or less. Why is that paramount? LBR has a one paragraph or so explanation of the Holy Grail. In and of itself, is that sufficient to turn Joe Shmoe into a consistently profitable trader? Of course not. But I've written a bit about why this "one page" criteria is nonsense to me. And here look at us. It's taking more than one page to hash out our thoughts to each other about that. Does that imply a fault in either of us that we can't fully explain everything we mean to explain to each other regarding that argument? Come to think of it, makes me wonder why my divorce decree took more than one page to explain, the concept was so easy to grasp. Talk about neverending...
And if one is instead teaching students about "trading" with the intent of enabling them to develop methodologies of their own, then the process will take far longer. This is not, however, what Jack is doing.
I don't know where he said he was. Are we now switching the topic to whether he said he's getting others to create their own methods? And again, how would this prove the criteria that Jack must not over time teach the methods he uses but constrain that teaching period?
dbphoenix, there's only one issue on the table, really, truly. "Does it make money". Otherwise, when we get tired of wrangling over the above inconsequential matters, we're gonna focus on newer fresher inconsequential matters to wrangle over. This one issue has to be the touchstone for further posts. That not only will cut down on the size of my posts, that will also serve to focus on the only thing that really matters instead of yet another neverending non-issue.
I'll be interested to see if he can come up with anything original.
Speaking of interesting, wasn't it interesting that nwb reported that Jack helped him and others attain positive gains? It was far more interesting to me to read that than to concern myself as to how much of what Jack teaches is 100% Jack's vs others. But I'll beat you to the point regarding the idea that Jack is being credited as helpful, [humorous sarcasm] that's not original either, others have been helpful before him. [/humorous sarcasm]
