Objections to SCT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from trader225:

But, Joe is well known paranoiac.
Will he be able to make decision?
More...

Even though the distance between clear perception and flawless execution can be thinner than a pubic hair, that by no means guarantees success.

One needs more than that.


****

Dave Tatom reminds me of Joe Doaks. If you're not familiar with either fellow, let me start by telling you about Joe Doaks. Joe was the featured character in a wonderful old shaggy dog story. As the story went, Joe had been everywhere, done everything, and knew everybody. Mention any fellow's name and Joe knew him, no matter how famous or obscure the personage. In time, Joe's cronies were driven to distraction by this, to the point of challenging him to put an end to his one-upping ways once and for all. "We're bettin' you don't know the Pope," one friend taunted, laying down what the group had conceived as the ultimate challenge. "The Pope? Oh sure, heck of a guy," Joe replied without so much as the briefest of pauses. "We're bettin' a thousand dollars you don't know him," chimed in another, putting some serious teeth in the anticipated showdown. (This is a very old story.)

"Save your money, lads, and take my word for it. I know the Pope," Joe came back, calm as could be. The antagonists were not to be denied, and within a couple of weeks Joe and one of the challengers, selected to be the witness by having drawn the shortest straw, were standing in St. Peters Square in a throng of tens of thousands of the faithful, waiting for a scheduled appearance by the Pope. With just a few minutes to go before the appointed time, Joe hastily excused himself and disappeared into the crowd. While the "witness" was trying to decide what to do next a great roar went up from the huge assembly as the doors to the balcony opened and the Papal entourage stepped out. Unable to see clearly what was going on, the fellow turned to an excited, cheering stranger and asked him who was on the balcony. "I'm not sure who the fellow is in the beanie and white dress, but the guy standing next to him is Joe Doaks!"

http://www.tatom.com/ar7.htm
 
Quote from hypostomus:

Objection #14. To roughly quote the estimable Spydertrader: "There are no hard and fast rules here." That perfectly expresses my objection. Now tell me, which is harder, making money trading regularly or getting laid regularly? If you look like me, the latter. The latter being harder, do I have rules? You betcha. Binary decision theory rules (yes/no, no maybes)? Yes (notice the no maybe). Are they tested? Yes. Is the pussy expectation positive net of expenses? Yes. The rules?

Is she over 45?

Is she overweight?

Is she drinking?

Is she married?

Unhappily?

Has she gotten laid in the last six months?

Does she laugh at my jokes?

Touch me as she laughs?

Follow my gestured non-verbal directions?

Rules! Rules! Hard and fast! If you want to get hard fast!
More...
Stop this ! Hypostomus you have no right to hijack Joe Doaks' thread.

Joe Doaks has been articulating his objections, and Jack Hershey has been giving detailed answers. Why do you have to ruin a good thing?
 
Quote from Tums:

Stop this ! Hypostomus you have no right to hijack Joe Doaks' thread.

Joe Doaks has been articulating his objections, and Jack Hershey has been giving detailed answers. Why do you have to ruin a good thing?
More...
Jack was banned.
Long ago.
 
OBJECTION "A"

Seeing a trend underway and momentum building, I feel compelled to enter with an objection of my own. In an effort to differentiate my own objections from those of Hypostomus, I have chosen to identify mine alphabetically. And so, we begin.

As Hypostomus suggested, Jack's SCT method seems to be in its final form. (Refer to Objection # 17 on page 65 of this thread.) Evidently, there is no need for improvement. Readers may recall that I had often criticized Jack for his outlandish claims about regularly making 3 times the daily range and averaging 4-7% per day. Anyone can see how, left unattended, such an approach would make more money than there are bags to carry it. Of course, more sensible heads prevailed and advised me that you can only trade so much size before liquidity issues deteriorate one's ability to properly employ the method. And while there is truth in this argument, I would think that very liquid markets can be fairly forgiving of size...to a point. And so, Hershey devotees will correctly argue that you can only trade so many contracts "seamlessly and continuously."

But here's the thing. If there is only one proper way to trade the SCT method, and Jack's pupils are voraciously studying and applying it, and Jack is encouraging everyone to teach someone else and "pay it forward," then will not these fine traders, growing in both number and size, eventually fall over themselves trying to enter and exit at essentially the same time? In other words, if any of them takes issue with my extrapolating the magical mathematics of compounding for an individual trader by arguing liquidity constraints, then why should their very same argument not apply to the collective effect of their trading in the same manner?

Please advise.
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

OBJECTION "A"

Seeing a trend underway and momentum building, I feel compelled to enter with an objection of my own. In an effort to differentiate my own objections from those of Hypostomus, I have chosen to identify mine alphabetically. And so, we begin.

As Hypostomus suggested, Jack's SCT method seems to be in its final form. (Refer to Objection # 17 on page 65 of this thread.) Evidently, there is no need for improvement. Readers may recall that I had often criticized Jack for his outlandish claims about regularly making 3 times the daily range and averaging 4-7% per day. Anyone can see how, left unattended, such an approach would make more money than there are bags to carry it. Of course, more sensible heads prevailed and advised me that you can only trade so much size before liquidity issues deteriorate one's ability to properly employ the method. And while there is truth in this argument, I would think that very liquid markets can be fairly forgiving of size...to a point. And so, Hershey devotees will correctly argue that you can only trade so many contracts "seamlessly and continuously."

But here's the thing. If there is only one proper way to trade the SCT method, and Jack's pupils are voraciously studying and applying it, and Jack is encouraging everyone to teach someone else and "pay it forward," then will not these fine traders eventually fall over themselves trying to enter and exit at essentially the same time? In other words, if any of them takes issue with my extrapolating the magical mathematics of compounding by stressing liquidity constraints, then why should their very same argument not apply to the collective effect of their trading?

Please advise.
More...
Dialectics would make this same point, however, much more gently. So gently, in fact, that some might never realize that it had been made.

p.s. All dialectic isn't Marxist. There is Socratic as well.
 
At my firm, the head trader, when he hears of
Hershy traders, always says, "Shake 'em out!"
Apparently there is an opportunity for arbitrage there.
 
Trader225, you sure you ain't no pinko commie queer? I be watchin' you! Ima League-a Nations man, meself. Good old Woodie Wilson, how ah missim! But let the dialectic fly, longs it don't vileate the Alien and Sedition Act. One World? One Market! One Future! An' iss bigganuf fo Jack ta trade 10,000 cars!
 
Opie, Joe Doaks has got THE background for trading NQ. You know them damn heat-seekin' missoils the ragheads are a' threatnin' to shove up yore ass while yore a' mindin' yore own binnis flyin'? Joe designed the algorithms that track 'em! Yessiree! Forty state enhanced Kalman filters! Studied under ole Rudy hissef at Stanford! Coded filters on a TI-59, back in the day. Now Joe has more damn computer power than he has brainpower, and he' a' usin it ta shove NQ up YORE ass!
 
Quote from hypostomus:

Trader225, you sure you ain't no pinko commie queer? I be watchin' you! Ima League-a Nations man, meself. Good old Woodie Wilson, how ah missim! But let the dialectic fly, longs it don't vileate the Alien and Sedition Act. One World? One Market! One Future! An' iss bigganuf fo Jack ta trade 10,000 cars!
More...
An won't that hi CME crib be somefun wondaful?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top