Beginner rockets are just a subset of the Jack Hershey Method channel trading concept according to JH, so let's have a look at them.
Jack Hershey Method: Channels
- Thread starter Chicken Little
- Start date
Will my Jack Hershey Cliffs Notes help? They're made almost entirely of direct quotes from Jack himself or A Team documents, with minor editing.
I speak from an orientation IBM made when it had 80% of the worled market. IBM assembled folks in Poghkeepsie and later Eurpoeans in Kilchberg Switzerland. I am a product of the US science search of the late 40's to early 50's and also I lived in the peculiar climate of BTL then the Darvas period of NYC and Greenwich, Conn. I was bouncing from Shockey and Shannon to Princeton on Tuesdays to Science Fairs on tesla and half lives of radio active elements. My preferred dining place in Princeton is the Princeton Inn. I played cops and robbers in the Firestone Library when it was being build (as a guest of the contractors twin children). I am not asking for snow conditions at Whistler or where you dine in NYC.
For the markets I sight several data characterisics not at all familiar. I don't do edges. The B Team has it all understood and is stuck in a place that is different than my views. Franco Modigliani recently of MIT had the theory for sure. Modigliani determined, and WON he NP for a Contribution. I abide by his remedy. Therefore by my pro active behavior, I have an offer in support of the remedy. As time passes and you look at stuff like Norbert Weiner and Richard Restak you will find out how impressive the first steps are.
It is not a coiincidence at all in any way what so ever that the dream team is saying things about integrating the sewweep focal points and saying the inferential things they say and that B has had a eureka on the channel overlap. This is what Barbara Marx Hubbard was suggesting in her oncept of sinergistic convergence among isolated groups that merge into larger common purpose groups. Doxiatis out of greece did the same with Ekistiks, the science of human settlements.
Surf the gaussians on the lower fractals to do 4 to 7% a day. 1% a day is underachieving. You can have 7/8 winners. Non performers give you cash for performers. My best net to dat5e was 17 points on a 100,000 shares in the 30 dollar exit range. Taking half that out of the market is a normal way to operate for me. The four levels of Icebergers exist. Level IV enters on 50% crossover with divergence of the fast stochastic lines. Level Iâs enter as do rocketeers. Levels II and III enter using the rocket rules on the fast stochastic (5, 2, 3). Levels I and II exit when the fast stochastic comes out the other side of the 20/80. Level IIâs reverse into a long trade. Level IVâs reverse on the 50% where lines are divergent. Confirm your iceberg entry and determine that the iceberg is now operating at low risk. Follow SCT rules as superceding rocket rules. All the indicators are designed for integration over a spectrum of fractals. Use three MLR's and measure the rate of change of the three pairs of angular velocities generated and use something kindred to the algebra for base five as a starter.
Backtesting is not a viable means for finding anything out. The reason why is fairly straightforward to determine. If you are backtesting something and you feel you have grasp the thing you are backtesting, then you have failed to really grasp what (the thing) is going on. It is not possible for a person who does not know what is going on to back test this stuff. I have stated it. And it just flows from there using boolean algebra.
Lay out three ring binders with annotations to scope out and bound the PV relationship and detail the SCT paradigm. Together it will take you at least 2000 pages. Print on the left side of the binders only and do it every day at least 100 times on all fractals. Put a tab in your binder labeled CC. (compare and contrast). CC is excellent as you can read. All annotations take as much as possible out of play. You will have assembled it and you can go through it and figure out in detail all the things I did to produce the stuff.
This practical method is condensed from camtasia replays where about 3/4 of the stuff is removed. Someone will get you there if you do not have all that stuff in a binder. It also has all glossary terms in bold. A walk in the park is the place to start.
In the past ET has seen blank forms and filled in forms from me. They have seen me post combos as well for the $600 per contract that is where you will be operating. The record is there on this and you have seen it and and you are doing likewise I am sure. You will notice that you are now getting in gear on this.
I speak from an orientation IBM made when it had 80% of the worled market. IBM assembled folks in Poghkeepsie and later Eurpoeans in Kilchberg Switzerland. I am a product of the US science search of the late 40's to early 50's and also I lived in the peculiar climate of BTL then the Darvas period of NYC and Greenwich, Conn. I was bouncing from Shockey and Shannon to Princeton on Tuesdays to Science Fairs on tesla and half lives of radio active elements. My preferred dining place in Princeton is the Princeton Inn. I played cops and robbers in the Firestone Library when it was being build (as a guest of the contractors twin children). I am not asking for snow conditions at Whistler or where you dine in NYC.
For the markets I sight several data characterisics not at all familiar. I don't do edges. The B Team has it all understood and is stuck in a place that is different than my views. Franco Modigliani recently of MIT had the theory for sure. Modigliani determined, and WON he NP for a Contribution. I abide by his remedy. Therefore by my pro active behavior, I have an offer in support of the remedy. As time passes and you look at stuff like Norbert Weiner and Richard Restak you will find out how impressive the first steps are.
It is not a coiincidence at all in any way what so ever that the dream team is saying things about integrating the sewweep focal points and saying the inferential things they say and that B has had a eureka on the channel overlap. This is what Barbara Marx Hubbard was suggesting in her oncept of sinergistic convergence among isolated groups that merge into larger common purpose groups. Doxiatis out of greece did the same with Ekistiks, the science of human settlements.
Surf the gaussians on the lower fractals to do 4 to 7% a day. 1% a day is underachieving. You can have 7/8 winners. Non performers give you cash for performers. My best net to dat5e was 17 points on a 100,000 shares in the 30 dollar exit range. Taking half that out of the market is a normal way to operate for me. The four levels of Icebergers exist. Level IV enters on 50% crossover with divergence of the fast stochastic lines. Level Iâs enter as do rocketeers. Levels II and III enter using the rocket rules on the fast stochastic (5, 2, 3). Levels I and II exit when the fast stochastic comes out the other side of the 20/80. Level IIâs reverse into a long trade. Level IVâs reverse on the 50% where lines are divergent. Confirm your iceberg entry and determine that the iceberg is now operating at low risk. Follow SCT rules as superceding rocket rules. All the indicators are designed for integration over a spectrum of fractals. Use three MLR's and measure the rate of change of the three pairs of angular velocities generated and use something kindred to the algebra for base five as a starter.
Backtesting is not a viable means for finding anything out. The reason why is fairly straightforward to determine. If you are backtesting something and you feel you have grasp the thing you are backtesting, then you have failed to really grasp what (the thing) is going on. It is not possible for a person who does not know what is going on to back test this stuff. I have stated it. And it just flows from there using boolean algebra.
Lay out three ring binders with annotations to scope out and bound the PV relationship and detail the SCT paradigm. Together it will take you at least 2000 pages. Print on the left side of the binders only and do it every day at least 100 times on all fractals. Put a tab in your binder labeled CC. (compare and contrast). CC is excellent as you can read. All annotations take as much as possible out of play. You will have assembled it and you can go through it and figure out in detail all the things I did to produce the stuff.
This practical method is condensed from camtasia replays where about 3/4 of the stuff is removed. Someone will get you there if you do not have all that stuff in a binder. It also has all glossary terms in bold. A walk in the park is the place to start.
In the past ET has seen blank forms and filled in forms from me. They have seen me post combos as well for the $600 per contract that is where you will be operating. The record is there on this and you have seen it and and you are doing likewise I am sure. You will notice that you are now getting in gear on this.
Here is a chart with channels provided by JH. It states the following about the construction of channels:
"All channels drawn on two consecutive bars where first bar is a FTT of prior channel. All channels overlap".
FTT = Failure To Trend
The FTT shows up as a move beyond the end of the bar opposite the direction of the channel. For example, the first lower low after a series of higher lows indicates a failure to trend in an upward sloping channel.
"All channels drawn on two consecutive bars where first bar is a FTT of prior channel. All channels overlap".
FTT = Failure To Trend
The FTT shows up as a move beyond the end of the bar opposite the direction of the channel. For example, the first lower low after a series of higher lows indicates a failure to trend in an upward sloping channel.
For those who still fail to discover any method in Jack's blurbs, the chart below may put tem on their way.
Quote from Ripley:
You idiot. CL! At least get your jackronyms right. It's "failure to traverse".
Of course it is !!
My bad.
This example provided by the inestimable Mr. hypotenuse illustrates the high level of audience participation I would like to see on this thread and further it reflects his level of studious delving into the Jack Hershey Methods.
But, may I ask "what's your angle ?"
A few questions please!
I remember that diagram being from Jack himself and would like to apply his guidance: "All annotations take as much as possible out of play. You will have assembled it and you can go through it and figure out in detail all the things I did to produce the stuff."
So my questions are: do you think it would be best to have a separate page in my 3 ring binder for each trendline? Will that be enough to take EVERYTHING out of play? Do you think that one page per trendline will be enough to "figure out in detail all the things [he] did to produce the stuff?" The way I look at it, better safe than sorry! Also, what about all the other fractals? And the Gaussians?