I feel for WchPl. He really worked hard, and followed all the advice with docility. If any of you guys, who keep taunting him with evasive advice, have some heart, and the necessary knowledge, the humane thing to do is to give him now the relevant pieces of knowledge to be profitable, surely, in private; there's no need to unveil them to everybody. Or, if you actually don't have those pieces of knowledge, at least open to him about this, in private too; there's no need to unveil that to everybody. This isn't funny.
Making JH' SCT and all his material alive
- Thread starter WchPl
- Start date
Emerson said, “All is a riddle,and the key to that riddle,...is another riddle.”
On another note,
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/...mory-even-if-you-cant-find-your-car-keys.html
Jack shared and published his systems in their entirety. The only thing that is missing is one’s understanding to put the pieces together.
That missing piece everyone has access to and has the ability to use. The only constraint is that it can’t be told through words, it’s self-generated.
Any thought entertained about his work not being complete is disempowering and false.
Regardless of anyone’s opinions of wchpl’s progress, I see that he is reaping rewards beyond what he can express in words. The quality of his questions are rising, his methodical logical deductive process is increasing and his emotional countenance is improving and becoming more resilient. His level of fear and anxiety is reducing as he can transform more noise into signal. His confidence is also increasing and he is actually experiencing pleasurable feelings as he applies MADA.
Even though one could interpret my answers as being evasive, they are not. That’s not the intent. The intent is to build his capacity, that only comes from encouraging his deductive thinking. Questions stimulate that more directly than answers do.
What stimulates it the most is getting down to it and annotating a chart with it’s corresponding log, throughly and completely.
As one builds on what they know that they know, the parts that are unclear get driven up to gain clarity.
Last edited:
@baro-san: Maybe you underestimate @WchPl? Seems progress is being made and hopelessness giving way to grit and endurance (good qualities for life in general). However, nobody here are promising results, other than more work in order to improve understanding various parts of JHM. Whatever is shared by peers, everybody may pick something up. Though those sharing are probably learning more. Sharing by spoonfeeding is IMHO, a great disservice in this regard, exactly opposite of remedy. Except maybe, when so obviously wrong, deduction starts operating again.
I doubt anyone on ET have the full methodology (meaning: several refined systems based on what, 50 years of trading?). I believe those (if any) who are using parts actively, have adapted the pieces for their own process. Of course, there's no way to be sure.
However, what makes sense to discuss in a "JHM thread" is JHM, whatever that may be, and not all possible permutations of alternatives and personal variations? There's JHM, and then there's what makes sense to oneself. The two aren't necessarily the same. Who's doing what doesn't actually matter to me. The logic and reasoning do - though will remain locked for those who do not do the work and share.
The personal variations is part of what makes discussing details so difficult, since they're not JHM, though nobody know for sure until they "know it all"
. Also the sensitive toes and frustrations at differing viewpoints, makes communication difficult. I think this is why Jack emphasized "transference", distilling the logic "exactly". Though, a theoretical goal probably impossible to achieve and even verify 100%, MADA is the personal process one may use in order to iteratively refine and provide some context for real or simulated trading.
Anyone is free to make anything out of it, use/abuse parts, to hearts content.
I've made myself clear enough, I hope, privately to @WchPl before, and consider him peer in this effort. To me, for now, this is hobby. I wouldn't recommend JHM to anybody who don't see any reasonable rhyme or logic in the methodology, and I find the framework rather complex, hard to grasp without some introduction/nudging, though also comprehensive.
It is best to remember we all have different backgrounds. Something crystal clear to someone, may be ink to another. So feel free to share!
I doubt anyone on ET have the full methodology (meaning: several refined systems based on what, 50 years of trading?). I believe those (if any) who are using parts actively, have adapted the pieces for their own process. Of course, there's no way to be sure.
However, what makes sense to discuss in a "JHM thread" is JHM, whatever that may be, and not all possible permutations of alternatives and personal variations? There's JHM, and then there's what makes sense to oneself. The two aren't necessarily the same. Who's doing what doesn't actually matter to me. The logic and reasoning do - though will remain locked for those who do not do the work and share.
The personal variations is part of what makes discussing details so difficult, since they're not JHM, though nobody know for sure until they "know it all"
. Also the sensitive toes and frustrations at differing viewpoints, makes communication difficult. I think this is why Jack emphasized "transference", distilling the logic "exactly". Though, a theoretical goal probably impossible to achieve and even verify 100%, MADA is the personal process one may use in order to iteratively refine and provide some context for real or simulated trading.Anyone is free to make anything out of it, use/abuse parts, to hearts content.
I've made myself clear enough, I hope, privately to @WchPl before, and consider him peer in this effort. To me, for now, this is hobby. I wouldn't recommend JHM to anybody who don't see any reasonable rhyme or logic in the methodology, and I find the framework rather complex, hard to grasp without some introduction/nudging, though also comprehensive.
It is best to remember we all have different backgrounds. Something crystal clear to someone, may be ink to another. So feel free to share!
Last edited:
Sprout,
You seem a smart and nice guy ... You might not be aware that the tone of your posts changed over time, in the same way spydertrader's and others' tone changed (in time, most of them proved to actually be just pretenders). I have no reason to doubt your good intentions, or claims, but I believe that the right thing to do now is to either share (in private) with wchpl something that can really help him, or to leave him alone. I'm sure it isn't your intention, but it is cruel to give somebody unfounded hopes, even when you don't misrepresent yourself.
You seem a smart and nice guy ... You might not be aware that the tone of your posts changed over time, in the same way spydertrader's and others' tone changed (in time, most of them proved to actually be just pretenders). I have no reason to doubt your good intentions, or claims, but I believe that the right thing to do now is to either share (in private) with wchpl something that can really help him, or to leave him alone. I'm sure it isn't your intention, but it is cruel to give somebody unfounded hopes, even when you don't misrepresent yourself.
Since the start of this thread almost 1 year ago, the OP, Wchpl, has done a complete 180 with his understanding (and hopefully with RT usability) of JH methods! He has CLEARLY done work beyond what most, including myself, have done. That is not to say the work that has been done is streamlined, but for WchPl learning, it work(s)(ed)!! It is not my place, NOR ANYONE, to impose "best practice" OPINIONS on WchPl's progress. I say nicely done WchPl, keep up the good work!!
One of my bigger A-ha's came when Sprout merely mentioned that (most) charts uploaded by Jack were annotated by students: That never dawned on me, doh! I assume the annotations were "corrected" in debriefing sessions, but we will likely never know... The unabridged and unwashed is the literature. It's interesting (to me) WchPl has begun noticing there is wiggle room within the confines. An essential LEAP, imo, for his continued progress. And make no mistake... WchPl is responsible for getting himself there, and you can tell by his recent posts he is (rightfully) proud!
Everyone knows I am a JHM rogue. As such, most here do or will dismiss me. I trade. And I know there are ways and means of JHM that DO NOT WORK (for me) IN REAL-TIME! I also do not get caught up in the minutia of the method. One bar, mis-ID's, not not ftt, pink versus brown nipples, none of it sends me crying to my cave, rethinking my existence as a trader or the validity of JH and JHM. I trade. Hopefully others get there... "you know that you know".
One of my bigger A-ha's came when Sprout merely mentioned that (most) charts uploaded by Jack were annotated by students: That never dawned on me, doh! I assume the annotations were "corrected" in debriefing sessions, but we will likely never know... The unabridged and unwashed is the literature. It's interesting (to me) WchPl has begun noticing there is wiggle room within the confines. An essential LEAP, imo, for his continued progress. And make no mistake... WchPl is responsible for getting himself there, and you can tell by his recent posts he is (rightfully) proud!
Everyone knows I am a JHM rogue. As such, most here do or will dismiss me. I trade. And I know there are ways and means of JHM that DO NOT WORK (for me) IN REAL-TIME! I also do not get caught up in the minutia of the method. One bar, mis-ID's, not not ftt, pink versus brown nipples, none of it sends me crying to my cave, rethinking my existence as a trader or the validity of JH and JHM. I trade. Hopefully others get there... "you know that you know".
tidddlywinks,
Anyway, I expected you guys to react; probably wchpl will react too. I didn't think that any of you will agree with me, at least not openly, but I felt kind of sorry enough to interject. I remember at least a couple of guys who wasted enough energy and hope on spydertrader's threads to eventually have some kind of nervous breakdown; nobody assumed responsibility. At some point they actually parroted as if they knew enough to "teach" others, to later abjectly confess they were overwhelmed. This isn't to be taken lightly.
Again:
That sounds funny ...
Anyway, I expected you guys to react; probably wchpl will react too. I didn't think that any of you will agree with me, at least not openly, but I felt kind of sorry enough to interject. I remember at least a couple of guys who wasted enough energy and hope on spydertrader's threads to eventually have some kind of nervous breakdown; nobody assumed responsibility. At some point they actually parroted as if they knew enough to "teach" others, to later abjectly confess they were overwhelmed. This isn't to be taken lightly.
Again:
In other words: "ET, the place where you get to know people personally, and they even take on your personal responsibility of teaching you to build money-printing enterprises!" Beware own relationship with money, or the idea of generating money!
Regardless if anyone has this inclination, "aiding" in such way is just inviting even more trouble! What if that venture fails, and how about the decency of self-responsibility? Even if someone deceived themself, how does that prevent anyone else to stand on their own feet? Nice troll, but this is just more of victimization BS. Of course there are reactions on fake attempts to end sharing in guise of caring for others. Pretty cheap to stand by offering nothing oneself. If you yourself don't see this change of tone, maybe realize what is obvious to others? Or maybe you've no idea about trading? If you do, you're actually a hypocrite. If not, you've no idea what you're accusing others of neglecting to do. Just IMHO.
Honesty doesn't mean obligation to serve or be taken advantage of. Anyone can share freely, in "private" (yeah right), or not, in however manner they damn well personally prefer.
I can understand this as an honest mistake though unfortunate chilling effect, and a thorny trap for good people.
I do however, thank you for any of your posts and pointers, even if they were only pointing and hinting themselves.
Anyhow, I'm the first to plainly state that 99.9% prospects of free money is most likely a scam or fools deceiving themselves, but in threads about JHM and in most threads actually, this is an off-topic discussion. Unless @WchPl invite further discussion on it. Might be interesting on his/her own terms.
Regardless if anyone has this inclination, "aiding" in such way is just inviting even more trouble! What if that venture fails, and how about the decency of self-responsibility? Even if someone deceived themself, how does that prevent anyone else to stand on their own feet? Nice troll, but this is just more of victimization BS. Of course there are reactions on fake attempts to end sharing in guise of caring for others. Pretty cheap to stand by offering nothing oneself. If you yourself don't see this change of tone, maybe realize what is obvious to others? Or maybe you've no idea about trading? If you do, you're actually a hypocrite. If not, you've no idea what you're accusing others of neglecting to do. Just IMHO.
Honesty doesn't mean obligation to serve or be taken advantage of. Anyone can share freely, in "private" (yeah right), or not, in however manner they damn well personally prefer.
I can understand this as an honest mistake though unfortunate chilling effect, and a thorny trap for good people.
I do however, thank you for any of your posts and pointers, even if they were only pointing and hinting themselves.
Anyhow, I'm the first to plainly state that 99.9% prospects of free money is most likely a scam or fools deceiving themselves, but in threads about JHM and in most threads actually, this is an off-topic discussion. Unless @WchPl invite further discussion on it. Might be interesting on his/her own terms.
Last edited:
Hi all,
heated debate i see and i have something to say but a big caveat first. i'm no expert on JHM 2.0. i've tried learning it a while ago but gave up when i saw too many inconsistencies.
my main objection is with the binary definition of JHM.
in a binary closed system there is no room for interpretation . either something is or it isn't.
all factors are known and it is finite in nature. meaning all permutations have been accounted for and the system can be followed as a recipe in a cook book. while it is awesome to know how things came to be it is not necessary to understand the logic in order to be successful in implementing the system.
here are some examples :
using a calculator vs doing calculations by hand gets to the same result.
understanding chemical interactions vs following a chemist step by step instructions gets the same result.
using the black&scholes preprogrammed formula to price options vs knowing the logic behind it
using the premium from index arb's site vs calculating it yourself etc etc..........
i have not found JHM to be strictly binary as being demonstrated by ANY of the threads.
there are MANY things that have been proven by myself to be SUBJECTIVE.some examples :
when does a lateral end ? : 2 closes, 1 close, a breach of high/low boundary, ibgs blah blah. using any one method of these is not binary since the lateral in hindsight can continue/or not.
B2B2R2B is always followed by R2R2B2R right? except for when there's a new pt 3 of course .
the FTT : anyone who has been around for a bit can cite multiple examples where not all channels end in ftt, and multiple ftts are sometimes present before a change in trend takes place.
the DEGAP saga : if degapping was not done before 2010 i guess Jack and Spyder were just lucky every day on the open when they didn't degap using the wrong carryover for many years.
there is a lot of evidence to the contrary(of the system being binary) mainly the successful people who trade it vs the people who are trying to learn it are vastly in the minority.
here is MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE :
i have found overarching concepts to be more robust and true. examples : markets move in a fractal way, volume leads price, the dominant side will ALWAYS have more volume.
i have implemented the above into a set of strict rules and i am very consistent in applying them.
i don't get hung up on the market HAS TO do this NOW.... if it doesn't i realize i made a mistake and move on.
sometimes using market orders i get crappy executions cause the market is moving too fast but such is life.
shocking but i have some losing days too
i know this is not what people want to hear. everyone would love to extract 3 times the daily range in an effortless manner.
here is what you should take away from my post :
we all have a brain and should use it to test claims and prove hypothesis . if something seems illogical then question it.
all the above are my claims and as such you should feel free to examine them for yourself.
in trading if not applying things in a consistent manner you are just asking for trouble. consistency breeds confidence and without it you will be second guessing yourself all the time
Lastly I just want to clarify that I have made 2 claims here.
1) Jack’s method has not proven to be binary by any stretch. I like to view it as a mixture of 80/20(science/art)
2) If any system is binary and finite in nature one need not know how it came to be in order to implement it successfully
Back to my corner…..
heated debate i see and i have something to say but a big caveat first. i'm no expert on JHM 2.0. i've tried learning it a while ago but gave up when i saw too many inconsistencies.
my main objection is with the binary definition of JHM.
in a binary closed system there is no room for interpretation . either something is or it isn't.
all factors are known and it is finite in nature. meaning all permutations have been accounted for and the system can be followed as a recipe in a cook book. while it is awesome to know how things came to be it is not necessary to understand the logic in order to be successful in implementing the system.
here are some examples :
using a calculator vs doing calculations by hand gets to the same result.
understanding chemical interactions vs following a chemist step by step instructions gets the same result.
using the black&scholes preprogrammed formula to price options vs knowing the logic behind it
using the premium from index arb's site vs calculating it yourself etc etc..........
i have not found JHM to be strictly binary as being demonstrated by ANY of the threads.
there are MANY things that have been proven by myself to be SUBJECTIVE.some examples :
when does a lateral end ? : 2 closes, 1 close, a breach of high/low boundary, ibgs blah blah. using any one method of these is not binary since the lateral in hindsight can continue/or not.
B2B2R2B is always followed by R2R2B2R right? except for when there's a new pt 3 of course .
the FTT : anyone who has been around for a bit can cite multiple examples where not all channels end in ftt, and multiple ftts are sometimes present before a change in trend takes place.
the DEGAP saga : if degapping was not done before 2010 i guess Jack and Spyder were just lucky every day on the open when they didn't degap using the wrong carryover for many years.
there is a lot of evidence to the contrary(of the system being binary) mainly the successful people who trade it vs the people who are trying to learn it are vastly in the minority.
here is MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE :
i have found overarching concepts to be more robust and true. examples : markets move in a fractal way, volume leads price, the dominant side will ALWAYS have more volume.
i have implemented the above into a set of strict rules and i am very consistent in applying them.
i don't get hung up on the market HAS TO do this NOW.... if it doesn't i realize i made a mistake and move on.
sometimes using market orders i get crappy executions cause the market is moving too fast but such is life.
shocking but i have some losing days too
i know this is not what people want to hear. everyone would love to extract 3 times the daily range in an effortless manner.
here is what you should take away from my post :
we all have a brain and should use it to test claims and prove hypothesis . if something seems illogical then question it.
all the above are my claims and as such you should feel free to examine them for yourself.
in trading if not applying things in a consistent manner you are just asking for trouble. consistency breeds confidence and without it you will be second guessing yourself all the time
Lastly I just want to clarify that I have made 2 claims here.
1) Jack’s method has not proven to be binary by any stretch. I like to view it as a mixture of 80/20(science/art)
2) If any system is binary and finite in nature one need not know how it came to be in order to implement it successfully
Back to my corner…..
I think this is a healthy approach and balanced perspective.
Keep in mind though, that even a computer displaying 32-bit coloured video at 120 Hz and 7-speaker surround sound, is binary.
I take boolean logic to mean that every test should be unambiguous: Result of each test being either true or false only. This as a preferred ideal as compared to probabilities and uncertainty (ie. real numbers between 0 and 1, fuzzy logic, etc).
Also, either one is on the right side of the market, or the wrong side. If on the wrong side, reverse or sideline (on lack of liquidity). This part also being boolean logic. If one doesn't have that, Jack puts it forth as an ideal to strive for (certainty vs probability).
One need to piece together the system oneself, and how you define your processes (trading plan) and interpretations, will vary wildly. As everyone understand things differently, it seems we naturally diverge, so hard to collaborate on one common understanding. There would be alot more bickering here if everyone were to attempt to agree on the same interpretations!
Also, people grow fond of their own inventions, and if they work for them, why not?It's a rabbit hole, but so are aggregates and everything else connected to trading. Without Jack, I'd never know where to look for alternatives on TA analysis. There are many concepts to be understood and integrated, aka "transferred". I don't think it's healhy at all to expect a full ruleset to follow blindly. One cannot improve it, mend it or verify it, without overall differentiation and complete mastery over the very invention itself as a Builder. (Ponder about what this means for "AI" / ML and local optimization of corporations..)
If all this ends in someone realizing this is a dead end for them, I'm happy for them if they move on!
In my own experience, I've learnt much more about "TA" using JHM than anything else though, and the concepts are interesting on many levels.
Last edited: