Jack Hershey's Drill number 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moderator note: Why don't those who don't like this approach simply stay away!

Some of the participant are really trying to make sense of things, and I think we should let them.

I have removed several posts with foul language and insults, and will continue to do so. If it gets out of hand, I'll remove the thread, as I don't intend to play 5th grade teacher.
 
Thanks for trying to keep it clean.

Suggestion: instead of removing a post, better keep it there but replace its content with a note "content removed by moderator". This way everybody'll be able to see and remember who are the occasional and the frequent / predictable offenders.
Quote from vikana:

Moderator note: Why don't those who don't like this approach simply stay away!

Some of the participant are really trying to make sense of things, and I think we should let them.

I have removed several posts with foul language and insults, and will continue to do so. If it gets out of hand, I'll remove the thread, as I don't intend to play 5th grade teacher.
More...
 
As requested from an Ivy brethren, I would let those who are interested know how I am doing.

I trade stocks with good success using the stuff I learned in the ES. Level 1 for me was the PV relationship and cycles as MAK discussed earlier. Once channels set in, things really started to click iq wise.

At this point, I do leap frog fractals without any effort at all. My mind sort of does it automatically and in slow motion. I also currently feel my Iq is much further along than my Eq.

Looking back from the point I am at now, I can safely say Jacks stuff is sound. My bank account is not big but continually getting bigger. I am still learning and continually making refinements and getting better. I also continue to be amazed at how well spyder did and continues to do. He is a success by anyones measures. Doubles his money last year and on rate to do better this year. Jacks stuff works and can be seen clearly by anyone who reads spyders journal.

JC
 
We're not talking about swing trading stocks here. I will concede that Jack's stock method works. What we want to know about is SCT applied to index futures intraday.
 
Quote from nwbprop:

As requested from an Ivy brethren, I would let those who are interested know how I am doing.

I trade stocks with good success using the stuff I learned in the ES.

JC
More...
Ok, glad to see the account growing. The threads that I posted earlier had to do with trading the ES contract.

I don't dispute Spyder's work which is great. Has Spyder traded ES during the day using Hershey's methods? No, why not?

However, nwbprop, you do not trade ES today with Hershey's method. Why not if it works?

Easyrider said in an earlier post that he does not trade SCT and still does not understand it (I can search for the post if needed.) Easyrider's profits come from trading Rockets which are hardly a Hershey invention (am I correct easy?).

Does anyone trade ES or any intraday futures successfully using Hershey's method? With hundreds of pages of posts on ES; how many people are using Hershey's methods to trade ES?

Is that a fair question to ask? I hope this post is within the moderator's limits of civil discourse. It is certainly intended to be reasonable.
 
Quote:
Some of the participant are really trying to make sense of things, and I think we should let them

I agree we should let them, if you don't like a method don't use it.

This works for me, lets continue the discussion
 
Having look at both Grob and Prof stuff in detail (ie. flowcharts of both), it was interesting to note that both were forms of SCT (the end of a trading opportunity is also the beginning of the next trading opportunity).

One can look at Proflogic/Charlie Dow's stuff/post. His too is SCT and 100% objective across the 4 fractals he rides. I have looked at both completely and understand the single overlap which is the FTT!

Both use two fractals CONCURRENTLY to trade the slower fractal. It is absolutely astonishing how both started along two different paths and wound up realizing a framework that takes CAPITAL out of the market CONTINUAL and SEAMLESSLY (ie fist over hand). Both will tell you that the screw up is the trader, not the framework (ie. EQ). They have both done the IQ. Similarly, both individuals get the same amount of flack for something that they had both developed completely themselves...

Admittedly, both are passionate about what they do. I have seen the FULL BLOWN schematic of both. Prof has gone as so far as to create a complete textbook that has been revised several times over for ITERATIVE IMPROVEMENTS! How can this be that two differing paths wound up with the realization that the trading market, by definition, will always be a SEAMLESS and CONTINUOUS stream of money???!!!

Go the Prof route if you need to simplify to a single tool and total PROGRAMMABLE objectivity. Both are in fact objective. One just requires a bit more fine tuning but also rewards for fine tuning...

MAK!
 
Quote from makosgu:

Having look at both Grob and Prof stuff in detail (ie. flowcharts of both), it was interesting to note that both were forms of SCT (the end of a trading opportunity is also the beginning of the next trading opportunity).

One can look at Proflogic/Charlie Dow's stuff/post. His too is SCT and 100% objective across the 4 fractals he rides. I have looked at both completely and understand the single overlap which is the FTT!

Both use two fractals CONCURRENTLY to trade the slower fractal. It is absolutely astonishing how both started along two different paths and wound up realizing a framework that takes CAPITAL out of the market CONTINUAL and SEAMLESSLY (ie fist over hand). Both will tell you that the screw up is the trader, not the framework (ie. EQ). They have both done the IQ. Similarly, both individuals get the same amount of flack for something that they had both developed completely themselves...

Admittedly, both are passionate about what they do. I have seen the FULL BLOWN schematic of both. Prof has gone as so far as to create a complete textbook that has been revised several times over for ITERATIVE IMPROVEMENTS! How can this be that two differing paths wound up with the realization that the trading market, by definition, will always be a SEAMLESS and CONTINUOUS stream of money???!!!

Go the Prof route if you need to simplify to a single tool and total PROGRAMMABLE objectivity. Both are in fact objective. One just requires a bit more fine tuning but also rewards for fine tuning...

MAK!
More...

Hi Mak,

do you have a link to Prof's textbook, or a summary of his methodology? He has made many posts, but I haven't found anything as yet regarding his methods...

Thanks in advance...
 
Quote from slacker:


...
Easyrider said in an earlier post that he does not trade SCT and still does not understand it (I can search for the post if needed.) Easyrider's profits come from trading Rockets which are hardly a Hershey invention (am I correct easy?).
...
More...

If you look for a document called "Beginner Rockets", you will find that it is authored by Hershey.

It is very difficult to hit the floor running. Out of the gates, my IQ was solid but my EQ was a mess. The entire time, my IQ knew exactly what was going on continually but I did not have EQ experience connected to the IQ which was already solid.

SCT is a very advanced level of trading. Rockets are a super initial building block. Grob would tell you of many folks who just simply stopped at various plateaus simply because the capital was more than sufficient to sustain more than just a comfortable life. Why would someone want to trade all the time if they can pull down a good chunk of capital in a "setup" manner?

There are several notches of improvement that can be added to Spyders stuff too...

Believe it or not, when you closely examine ROCKETS and the EQUITIES framework, there are a ton of similarities. These similarities are not coincidences and are actually in support of markets being non-random and providing a CONTINUATION of the opportunity extending itself...

People get fascinated in the SCT because it sounds sexy which it is! However, despite being rather simple and fast to take one's IQ from zero to 60, it is at best difficult to get the EQ from zero to 60. Too often, the EQ resists the IQ! Unlike most, Easyrider persisted to work out the IQ and then reinforced it with EQ (ie. his PNL). What is the problem for most, they want to get it, execute it, and experience it at redline immediately! It is possible with the right type of person and mentality. But most of us came with baggage to begin with and read about too many myths.

Regards,
MAK
 
I think that Jack's Icebergs III and IV are forms of SCT. They can be applied both to equity and future trading.
Quote from makosgu:

...
SCT is a very advanced level of trading. Rockets are a super initial building block. Grob would tell you of many folks who just simply stopped at various plateaus simply because the capital was more than sufficient to sustain more than just a comfortable life. Why would someone want to trade all the time if they can pull down a good chunk of capital in a "setup" manner?

There are several notches of improvement that can be added to Spyders stuff too...

Believe it or not, when you closely examine ROCKETS and the EQUITIES framework, there are a ton of similarities. These similarities are not coincidences and are actually in support of markets being non-random and providing a CONTINUATION of the opportunity extending itself...

People get fascinated in the SCT because it sounds sexy which it is!
...
More...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top