Malicious trolling and stalking

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frederick Foresight said:
How can I do due diligence on trade calls that I don't believe to exist because I never saw them? Where would I look, MarkBrown's quantum world? Meanwhile, you say:

Many, many, many? And you can't point to a single one because...it's a matter of perception? WTF?

And, seriously, this is your answer:

jered-pl-pg-1-jpg.137287


These are Jack's called trades? Again, WTF? What does this prove?
More...


Most likely what I'm about to explain will come across as unbelievable.

This is a summary log of trades. For more detail, one would have to look at the logs themselves and paired annotated charts. The columns are self-explanatory on the most part. EE represents End Effect in which there are 35, in other words the end of trend segments where profits are harvested. The last two columns are the gain and loss of each with net at the bottom per contract. The fourth column represent Long or Short as being the right side of the market. The third column represents the number of bars of the sentiment of column four. Each EE isn't necessarily a reversal, there are hold-thrus and sidelining that is part of the trading overlay.

It's a complete system, a language all into itself. As a language it requires work to build a vocabulary, grammar and usage for conversational proficiency. This is work that most will not attempt. No fault other than your own choice, you have not perceived what was there to perceive. This primarily comes from one's accumulated beliefs of what is and what is not possible. I only started a couple of years ago in earnest, and instead of braying, got to work manifesting clarity and understanding for myself with my own DD.

There are p&l prints by his students, again do your own DD. I've got plenty on my plate and thought to give you the courtesy.

It'll be like attempting to explain to someone how to fly a fighter jet without them even having sat in a cockpit of a single engine prop, nor believing that flying is possible at all.

If you put the pieces together you will come up with your own proof. Imho, it's more detailed proof than any snagit of a p&l could offer.

To each their own.
 
Sprout said:
Most likely what I'm about to explain will come across as unbelievable.

This is a summary log of trades. For more detail, one would have to look at the logs themselves and paired annotated charts. The columns are self-explanatory on the most part. EE represents End Effect in which there are 35, in other words the end of trend segments where profits are harvested. The last two columns are the gain and loss of each with net at the bottom per contract. The fourth column represent Long or Short as being the right side of the market. The third column represents the number of bars of the sentiment of column four. Each EE isn't necessarily a reversal, there are hold-thrus and sidelining that is part of the trading overlay.

It's a complete system, a language all into itself. As a language it requires work to build a vocabulary, grammar and usage for conversational proficiency. This is work that most will not attempt. No fault other than your own choice, you have not perceived what was there to perceive. This primarily comes from one's accumulated beliefs of what is and what is not possible. I only started a couple of years ago in earnest, and instead of braying, got to work manifesting clarity and understanding for myself with my own DD.

There are p&l prints by his students, again do your own DD. I've got plenty on my plate and thought to give you the courtesy.

It'll be like attempting to explain to someone how to fly a fighter jet without them even having sat in a cockpit of a single engine prop, nor believing that flying is possible at all.

If you put the pieces together you will come up with your own proof. Imho, it's more detailed proof than any snagit of a p&l could offer.

To each their own.
More...
Neologisms aside, who's to say that these indecipherable etchings were not made after the fact rather than in real time? Assuming people were able to comprehend them in the first place. How is this in any way meaningful evidence of called trades?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top