Jack Hershey's Drill number 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from oddiduro:


When I first ran into Jack, I did not believe the claims that he was making either.
Oddi
Of the hundreds of posts read on this subject your last two are the best.

Reasonable, intelligent with no axe to grind that I can see.

Thank you for the posts.

All the best,
 
Quote from Jack Sexbuy:
§$%&&/()!"§$%&/&$%$.....
************************


talking about that boring graphic:

up right it says something about inflamed emotions...

well - WHO is the one who constantly creates the most naughty posts with the excessive use of the f*** word here? and if those posts are not the product of inflamed emotions, then what is?

with any single further "inflamed emotions"- post he surely will make he proves one more time that he cannot trade - which is the reason for his "inflamed emotions" which is...

but i'm repeating myself - this is soo boring. alone the fact that he is so obsessed with the names of chicken, 666 and myself is AGAIN a confirmation of what i was already pointing out before. somebody who himself believes what he tries to sell here wouldn't react at all - let alone in this form.

you sick guys should read a few things about psychology. i bet i could set the EXACT same trap 10 more times and you all would be trapped again and again - so much for your ability to learn.
 
Quote from Grob109:
...gerry...gerry....Gerry...
Gerry...Gerry........Gerry........Gerry.....Gerry...Gerry.......Gerry...

again - so many BAD words in one single post...

come here - open your mouth - i have the soap!
 
Quote from oddiduro:


Jack simply uses indicators to show when price is moving off a neutral bias, and the move is comfirmed with volume. Anyone that becomes acquainted with the materials needed to pass the CMT test will see Hershery stuff in all of these texts.

Best Regards
Oddi

That is what is so strange about this whole debate. A number of knowledgable people have pointed out that there is nothing new or revolutionary in what Jack teaches so it would seem what people are reacting to is his personality. Always in trading is not new. Trading without stops is not new. Using Prorata volume is not new. Gaussians are not new, etc. ad nauseum. Jacks convoluted way of presenting these concepts seems to upset a lot of people but within this maze are insights that ignite something for some people when they read them. For others it is gibberish. Go figure.
 
Quote from Grob109:

T666...666's... To 666 the first plateaux is unbelievable... why 666 can't see the market's potential EVEN on the first levelsmuch less on all the additional levels...Sadly, gerry can't even make a list (666 only does the copy cat thing from his vast computer storage and search results) and chicken is so stunned that he cannot consider making money as an alternative to ranting and screwing up backtesting... these people are some really pissed off people...666 has a terrific set of pictures of all kinds that he communicates. And they do not even begin to show what is possible. Gerry is the same. He sees pictures that are incredible and totally distorted too...Chicken posts the two beginner elements to get started: R and W.... Chicken posts that rocket do not work unless you use another thing called washes....Chicken complains that the thing he screwed up that doesn't work needs the thing that Easy uses...Gerry does not trade. Chicken doe not trade666 does not trade... Who is not using rockets: gerry, 666, chicken...Who is not making money: gerry, 666, chicken...This was not done by gerry, 666 and chicken...You are reading what people with screwed up minds write after they have screwed up their minds. Namely 666, chicken and gerry...What you get when you learn failure repeatedly and thoroughly is gerry, 666 and chicken... Gerry, 666 and chicken have cut themselves off plain and simple. See attached chart as a once over lightly on this test series...Notice well. I have made the chart. An editor has improved it to a level of excellence in presentation. Notice that is it a surprise, apparently to many people here even though in one form or another it has been floating around for quite a while. I am preparing an additional 360 multichoice questions each having four possible answers. They will be found at 60 locations for position trading and 60 locations for SCT trading. Getting a wrong answer sends a person to the place what explains why he is wrong and gives him the means to get the right answer at his original location when he is taken back there.Will gerry, chicken and 666 use this chart?... Lastly, they will never be able to get to read the chart in the first place.
According to your own chart, you're in "Irreversible Failure" mode for "Inflamed Emotions" and "Poor Intellectual Processes."
 
Quote from oddiduro:

666

I don't dispute that it is healthy to be a skeptic. I am a skeptic as well, so I set out some years ago to falsify the methodology. In reality, however, the methods do work. I have found through experience that backtesting has some severe limits. My question to you is why don't you simply falsify the claims in real time? We will not go through the semantics of what is and what is not verifiable, we will simply trade rockets on whatever instument you choose, on what ever time frame you choose. If you choose equities, I would only ask that you respect the float parameters on the low side. The equity must have a least a float of 5 million for liquidity purposes. Anything else is fair game.

I think that you are a genuine questioner 666, therefore I for one will work with any concesions that you choose. That is how confident I am of these methods.

Best Regards
Oddi
Oddi,

Appreciate your offer but no thanks. You, Hershey, and the rest of the A Team have zero credibility with me so I'm not inclined to waste my time forward testing a bunch of gobbeldygook that doesn't backtest favorably. You have zero credibility because not only does the A Team make fantastic unsupported claims, you have a penchant for dismissing valid concepts without reason. Which shouldn't come as a surprise because one can't dismiss a valid concept with reason.

Backtesting is a great example. The A Team is quick to dismiss it, especially when some Grobian concept doesn't test out.

According to Internet Guru Jack Hershey (with no auditable, public track record): "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." Huh?!?!

According to Hedge Fund Manager William Eckhardt (with a 20+ year auditable, successful public track record): "I know of no way to validate conjectures concerning technical trading without back testing"

IMO, the average Grobian would side with Jack on this due to an overwhelming need to believe. Kind of like believing in apparitions of Christ on grilled cheese sandwiches. But I'm with Eckhardt because, not only does he have real credentials, his thoughts and philosophy mesh with my experience. So Jack proclaims that I'm stuck, a failure, etc. If insisting on objective confirmation is stuck, then I'm guilty as charged.

Take something as simple and basic as the PV relationship which is easy to test. It didn't test out in 1999:Jack Hershey's Method Doesn't Work and it still doesn't. Now why is that? I think the author of that post hit the nail on the head:

"Sorry Jack, your method doesn't test out. Statistically speaking, buying at 0 and 7 and selling at 4 and 3 **DO NOT** provide an edge. None of your scores are predictive. Period. Also, why can't you provide simple, straight-forward explanations? For example, instead of going into your elegant Boolean binary decimal mumbo-jumbo, why couldn't you simply have said: Overall score = (4*Price score) + (2* Volume score) + A/D score? The answer is because there's no meat behing your cryptic writings and you need the smoke screen to hide the lack of content."

If you can argue these points with substance rather than faith, or show me ANYTHING of Jack's that DOES test out, I'm all ears. But I noticed that you didn't address my point about Bruce Kovner and Jim Simons from my previous post either. So let me ask you a variation of "where are all the customers' yachts?"... where are all of Grob's and the A Team's hedge funds?

Trader666
 
Quote from Trader666:

Oddi,

Appreciate your offer but no thanks. You, Hershey, and the rest of the A Team have zero credibility with me so I'm not inclined to waste my time forward testing a bunch of gobbeldygook that doesn't backtest favorably. You have zero credibility because not only does the A Team make fantastic unsupported claims, you have a penchant for dismissing valid concepts without reason. Which shouldn't come as a surprise because one can't dismiss a valid concept with reason.

Backtesting is a great example. The A Team is quick to dismiss it, especially when some Grobian concept doesn't test out.

According to Internet Guru Jack Hershey (with no auditable, public track record): "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." Huh?!?!

According to Hedge Fund Manager William Eckhardt (with a 20+ year auditable, successful public track record): "I know of no way to validate conjectures concerning technical trading without back testing"

IMO, the average Grobian would side with Jack on this due to an overwhelming need to believe. Kind of like believing in apparitions of Christ on grilled cheese sandwiches. But I'm with Eckhardt because, not only does he have real credentials, his thoughts and philosophy mesh with my experience. So Jack proclaims that I'm stuck, a failure, etc. If insisting on objective confirmation is stuck, then I'm guilty as charged.

Take something as simple and basic as the PV relationship which is easy to test. It didn't test out in 1999:Jack Hershey's Method Doesn't Work and it still doesn't. Now why is that? I think the author of that post hit the nail on the head:

"Sorry Jack, your method doesn't test out. Statistically speaking, buying at 0 and 7 and selling at 4 and 3 **DO NOT** provide an edge. None of your scores are predictive. Period. Also, why can't you provide simple, straight-forward explanations? For example, instead of going into your elegant Boolean binary decimal mumbo-jumbo, why couldn't you simply have said: Overall score = (4*Price score) + (2* Volume score) + A/D score? The answer is because there's no meat behing your cryptic writings and you need the smoke screen to hide the lack of content."

If you can argue these points with substance rather than faith, or show me ANYTHING of Jack's that DOES test out, I'm all ears. But I noticed that you didn't address my point about Bruce Kovner and Jim Simons from my previous post either. So let me ask you a variation of "where are all the customers' yachts?"... where are all of Grob's and the A Team's hedge funds?

Trader666

Well 666,

Then you will have to be written off as someone who simply wants to agitate, so this will be my last post to you. Fortunately, we do not require your stamp of approval to continue to increase our balance sheets.

I cannot help but wonder if Spyder, or dawg, or easyrider, or nwbprop bothered to backtest this method of trading. Oh well, as I have been watching this group of traders evolve in real time, I guess the question is moot.

I forgot to address the hedge funds. Perhaps the ego drive is not there to want or need to manage OPM. I don't know. I could easily ask the same question of you and others. It doesn't really matter that much in the grand scheme, however, now does it?

Best of Luck
Oddi
 
Quote from oddiduro:

Well 666,

Then you will have to be written off as someone who simply wants to agitate, so this will be my last post to you. Fortunately, we do not require your stamp of approval to continue to increase our balance sheets.

I cannot help but wonder if Spyder, or dawg, or easyrider, or nwbprop bothered to backtest this method of trading. Oh well, as I have been watching this group of traders evolve in real time, I guess the question is moot.

I forgot to address the hedge funds. Perhaps the ego drive is not there to want or need to manage OPM. I don't know. I could easily ask the same question of you and others. It doesn't really matter that much in the grand scheme, however, now does it?

Best of Luck
Oddi

I didn't expect a substantive reply. So go ahead, run away and increase your balance sheet. LOL. As for me and the others re: hedgefunds, we don't make wild, unsubstantiated claims of trading prowess -- that's your realm.
 
Quote from oddiduro:

Rockets work

Icebergs work

1,2,3 works

I have traded the ES using Hershey methods

I have traded equities using Hershey methods

I agree completely that Jack speaks in very sophisticated verbiage.

Jack simply uses indicators to show when price is moving off a neutral bias, and the move is comfirmed with volume. Anyone that becomes acquainted with the materials needed to pass the CMT test will see Hershery stuff in all of these texts.

Best Regards
Oddi

Oddi

I am truly glad for you. As Jack knows , I spent several years patiently getting to grips with his methods for equities and ES. I very much regret that I was unable to achieve any form of consistent profitability. It certainly wasn't for the lack of trying :) - I do not wish to imply that the methods cannot work - just that I, personally, was unable to achieve any consistency. If you or anyone would be prepared to enlighten me on a realtime basis then I would be delighted.
 
Quote from oddiduro:

In all of these threads, what is most unfortunate is that there are people who with to attack a senior who simply wants to share his life work. He is selling nothing. He wants us to subscribe to nothing.

When I first ran into Jack, I did not believe the claims that he was making either. ..

Best Regards
Oddi

To understand Jack, maybe one needs to have multiple number of skills first. I think you have a rich background of diff. disciplines, and that somehow allows you to grasp his concept without bogging down in his verbiage, explaining his method from your point of view maybe is what doctor ordered. How about a short (hopefully) journal to show the iceberg, etc... preferably in YM or ES. But you take your pick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top