Quote from schizo:
The point is that it need not be so difficult or overly elaborate. And yet, all these gurus cloak their otherwise simple trading method with lofty jargons and useless words that only baffles their readers. Even worse, they try to link trading with some sort of academic discipline, eg. psychology. My guess is that they think this makes them look smarter than they actually are.
To me, jack's system really boils down to one thing: trendline analysis. Anyway, it's hard to tell how effective his strategy is when he doesn't post his trades.
You make several good points from your point of view.
Your first point deals with KISS and your cloaking for KISS is to the point.
Lowering the barrier for others is a great idea. We all should do it.
Trend analysis is THE thing to do. Trends only do three things:
1. Continue,
2. Change, or
3. Overlap.
All three are easily measurable. By doing so the trader ALWAYS "knows that he knows". The IS KISS. And the trader always gets to take the market's offer.
Cloaking is a vocabulary issue. You and I cloak with different vocabularies.
You seem to be Bayesian based. I do not bet gamble or predict because my basis is Carnap and Keynes. Thus, my cloaking vocabulary stems from logic theory and paradigm theory and both are in the realm of science, deduction and non probablistic information theory. this is a foreign language to those in the financial industry and CW type traders. FI and CW use entirely different cloaking BECAUSE they deal with art, induction, and probabilistic information theory. The cloaking line is drawn.
You are in the majority and I am in the parasitic minority.
Different routines are used in each cloaker camp. OODA is common to FI and CW. I use the routine of scientists: Monitor, analyze, decision making and action. You state that when I loft you baffle. I cannot afford to be baffled since I am parasitic. The FI and CW does not baffle me and I do not feel loftd by either FI or CW either.
You make a good point that you are not associated with any particular academic discipline as am I. Above, I commented on the disciplines. For me the market is a problem to be addressed. I am limited to the Present for addressing the problem and solving it. Science and math prevails. I use binary vectors only.
Reflect and name anything less difficult or less elaborate.
I totally agree with your opinion of me. I look a lot smarter than I really am. You know that and I know that. My cloaking is different than yours so I look different and this can be misjudged as you point out. Misjudgers are abundant; they bet and predict a lot too. I do neither so I may look smarter for not doing it.
Your cloaking boils my system down. Its real name is Pool Extraction Paradigm. Three cloakers I use liberally and conservatively but not paradoxally.
FYI, there was an era of posting performance. It was long ago. I called my upcoming trades four times a day within he first hour and 1/2 of open; both parts of the trades. Coincidently, the SEC cited me repeatedly for some of these trades. I DID do the trades as the SEC determined with one caveat, I was not an "insider" or an insider trader. My trading just happens to fit the profile of an insider trader as determined by actual trades monitored by an official judgers of insider trading. Executives of corporations have taken actions to find out my information sources within their organizations on my trading of their corporations. They did this by calling me and asking me who in their organization I was getting tips from.
In the past era when I posted on the webb my calls, then trades and then results, I was judged by those who monitored me. I was cloaking out what I was going to do, what I did and what the results were.
As the decades pass, usrs of the PEP (See cloaking above) have been posting their trading. ET came into being and that practice continued live in ET in threads and live in chat. (See the cloaking records.) Alllof these public resources DO prevent most people from assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the performance. It is cloaked in a foreign language vocabulary to the FI and CW types. Sometimes it is judged by these FI and CW types. They apply their standard to our parasitically applied paradigm and its three applications.
The results are in from them. What we DO and post is unbelievable. Google "Nitro" and google "photoshop". Apparently, we are posting photoshopped results where the exact time of the trading corresponds precisely with the market trading.
Also to back up this travesty, a third party examination of a trade sent directly from the broker to the third party by FedEx did verify a 17 point net on a 100,000 share trade with 31 partial fills on a given day. As a consequence, the thrid party, a broker, offered discounts on comission to anyone using the trading approach.
I have, yet again, cloaked back at you. I used information, mostly. The content is direct and just deals with the published record mostly. Here is the thing. You may find things to be difficult. They may be overly elaborate in terms of the years of posting calls, then trades , then results.
After the years passed and people like nitro and you expressed their views, we knew we had made our point. Our filter for separating our cloaking from their cloaking was working with full effiency. We needed continuing visibility, however. So we set up our OCD program. Your application is under consideration. One of the neat qualifiers you have passed is the "search" deficiency you have. We waved this qualification for Trader666 and all those who change their aliass daily (for two years minimum).
Why would we post to pass it forward for years on end and post contemporary trading results daily? We did it to prevent people from finding us.
Here is a test. Google me and see if the first thing you find is an OCD blogger who posted three years ago. Is your computer screwed up and can't get a reverse chron list? Or do we control what detractors get to see first so they will confirm that cloaking with us is a waste of their valuable time.
I'm at my 1,000 word cloaking limit.
