Managing Mind/Body

I am contributing constructively. I provided clear critiques of three of Jack's dubious assertions. That's called debate, something you are not used to in your other place. We don't have Nazis over here. Responses to my arguments? No? Is perhaps what we want unchallenged acceptance of everything Jack says? I doubt that even Jack was subtle enough in NLP to understand what I meant about "strategies". Hard to have a debate when people aren't smart enough to understand what you mean.

Also, I suppose it is unrealistic to expect someone who has no demonstrated ability to trade in real time to debate in real time.
 
Quote from Roanoke:

There are so many disconnected thoughts in that rambling diatribe that one wonders where to start to rebut it. Perhaps the most factually based is the fallacy that SCT is not an "edge" system. Any combination of conditions on a chart which prompts a high expectation entry is an "edge". Any combination of conditions on a chart which prompts an exit completing the high expectation entry is an "edge". An FTT is an edge. Not exiting on the first trend change is an edge. Not trading in low volume is an edge (in a negative sense). Leaping on a consolidation in the first leg of a rocket is an edge. Reversing at channel extremes in an HVS is an edge. Trading premium anomalies is an edge. Not entering until synch is achieved is an edge (again of a negative sort). Bracketing a consolidation is an edge. Every single element of your various methods is an edge. Each system, taken as a whole, is an assemblage of edges, each of which (presumably) enhances the expectation over that of any one component edge.

You have progressed to the point that you see edges in several places for SCT. Let's say you get a chance to consider all the rest of them.

When you get there, then you have the concept of SCT straight as a seamless continuous collection of edges.

It is a limiting case in maths.

Keep doing what you are doing and then you may even see that reversing on trades is a helpful way to take profits and be in the next opportunity which you are calling an edge that follows another edge.

Seamless is used to describe continuity. So is continuous.

The task is to continually make money and occassionmally lock in profits.

Edges for you are entries. you omitted the other half of my construct.
 
Quote from Roanoke:

To continue, if you are going to talk NLP surreptitiously, with your references to auditory, visual, and kinesthetic modes of thought, you had better bone up on the subject of "strategies", since to the best of my knowledge there are no purely A, V, or K approaches.

color=red]you read a little too quickly or something. I am discussing the mind and how the part of the body called the brain work. It is vey true that there are no A, V and K strategies. I am not and will not be talking about what you misread into what I posted. QED[/color]

You fall into the "All psychology is autobiography" trap of thinking that the way you do things is the only way, which is evident from the way you mentor.

I do not have one way. And there is a whole universe of ways, meaning trading ways, that this mind/body dicussion applies to. See if you can find one that it would not apply to. QED.


Exquisite flexibility is the soul of NLP. How you can achieve that nuance in a medium where you cannot see hear or touch your correspondent is beyond me. Worse, in this medium, you are probably reading correspondence in your own voice, fantasizing a visualization of the correspondent, and experiencing only your own kinesthetic reactions, as you cannot see how the correspondent is reacting physically, much less verify that by touch. You are looking in a mirror at your innermost self, not at the reality of the person you are addressing.

this is an erroneous extention of nothing we are chatting about here. QED.


 
Those were answers? I see that you decline to be drawn into a meaningful debate. My remarks were totally relevant because this is all about YOU, and I have read everything you have ever posted here. In fact, I know some of it better than you do, because you make it up as you go, and conveniently forget what you have changed. You sneaked into NLP and now you won't follow through. You denigrate edge trading, but admit that SCT is a collection of edges, and yet you fail to see the illogic of the two positions. You profess to be attuned to the needs of individual traders, but you sell them a one-size-fits-all strategy. As to your comments on my trading approach, you have no idea what it is because I haven't shared it.
 
Quote from Roanoke:

I am contributing constructively. I provided clear critiques of three of Jack's dubious assertions.
One critique was (IMO) off topic... one was speculation... the third
was fine. I opened the third up for additional discussion.
 
I am not surprised that Roanoke did not condescend to answer. Your baseball analogy is all wet with references to visual and kinesthetic elements that have no counterpart in trading.
 
Quote from Roanoke:

Those were answers?
I see ...
You sneaked ...
You denigrate ...
you fail ...
You profess ...
you sell them ...
you have no idea
Who is whining now?? sheesh.

Some people debate to find the truth... typically those with this attitude
can easily identify others on "the team." In Roanoke I see someone
here who is just trying to win a game he invented.

He is trying to force his "opponents" to his own strengths... he wants
to get off on technicalities... this is THE PLAGUE of ET.
 
What happened to the environmental problem you posed? Do we have a little problem with attention span? Keep it crisply OT, please, or I shall be forced to punch "complain".

BTW, in your post above I failed to see any reasoned counter to the points raised, which IMO were quite valid.
 
Quote from Thomas Jackson:

I am not surprised that Roanoke did not condescend to answer. Your baseball analogy is all wet with references to visual and kinesthetic elements that have no counterpart in trading.
Mr Dictionary -- look up paradigm. This is the word I used.
 
Don't mince words with me, boy. Your post was phrased as an analogy or metaphor. A paradigm, in anybody's dictionary, is "an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype". If you meant it to be paradigmatic, it should have used a trading example. Your whole approach is symptomatic of a jock's bias toward trading, which quite to the contrary is the most cerebral game going. There is a very clear distinction, IMO, between the Mark Douglasses of the trading world and the Ari Kievs. But you digress. What has any of this to do with controlling the trading environment, unless indirectly it is an admonition to keep ET out of your trading day?
 
Back
Top