Quote from Spydertrader:
I mean no disrespect when I say this, but seriously, you have expended a huge amount of effort looking for 'the chink in the armor' which, evidently, you feel must exist. Now, I certainly don't want to give anyone the impression that I intend with this post to tell you what to do, but if you already trade profitably, why spend any time investigating something else? If you don't enjoy profits from your trading, why not read one document to see if you can find something of value? Start with this. Maybe it helps you, Maybe it doesn't. At least, you'll spend your time more efficiently toward the one goal we all have in common - making money.
With respect to your 'Objection' as outlined above, clearly, if everyone on the planet all began trading the same exact way, certainly the system could experience a breakdown or two. However, a tiny subset of the trading world (ET Membership) cannot agree on what makes up a trend (or even if trends exist). In such an environment (and considering the methods work across all markets), I do not have individual (or collective) liquidity concerns. Should liquidity (collective or otherwise) ever become a concern, I can always switch time frames or switch markets. After all, switching markets is exactly what I did (but not for liquidity reasons) when I moved from Equities to Futures.
Lastly, how does one develop 'objections' to a concept before one has fully understood the concept itself?
Good Trading to you all.
- Spydertrader
I appreciate your considered response. First, please understand that I am not looking for someone to teach me a method or style of trading. The approach I use is far from perfect, but it suits me just fine.
Next, we still seem not to have come to an understanding about the nature of my
Objection "A." At the risk (nay,
certainty) of repeating myself, Jack has made exorbitant performance claims. Simple compounding arithmetic would suggest that anyone replicating such returns, Jack included, would soon be richer than God. Well, perhaps that is a slight exaggeration. However, he would certainly find himself on the Forbes 400 list in almost no time. (Is Jack there yet?) However, and I repeat, the argument was made that you cannot keep increasing size indefinitely because of liquidity constraints. And I again acknowledge and defer that this is likely so. But if you apply such limiting logic to a SINGLE trader using the method, then how can a growing aggregate, collectively trading the same method, not run into the same problem regardless of individual size?
Mr. Harold Balls had mentioned recently that he trades 30 or so contracts and that he should increase his size. However, he said that potential trade size is not limitless and mentioned something about not being able to trade thousands of contracts without compromising the method. But if he, himself, cannot trade thousands at a clip, then how many SCT traders can be accommodated due to this liquidity constraint? If you are trading the same method, it should not matter whether one SCT trader is trading 1,000 contracts, or 100 SCT traders are each trading 10 contracts. With the ever increasing number of SCT traders and their growing trading prowess and account balances, what is the limit? Your response was that you do not have individual or collective liquidity concerns for the reasons you noted. Therefore, if you are indeed correct, then my initial argument of compounding into the stratosphere at Jack's stated rates of return is theoretically plausible. And you certainly do not need me to advise you how quickly money grows at such rates of return. And given that you guys can apparently exit any trade without a loss, what would keep you from employing that magical power of compounding to its full potential?
Spyder, let me be clear about something. As you know, I am not familiar enough with Jackâs methods to comment on them with any authority. The little I have seen seems a bit too complicated for my taste, but that is just a matter of personal preference. I think that the underlying premise has some virtue at its core. However, the idea of âalways inâ goes against the grain for me and does not quite pass the smell test. And, again, I will concede that this is a personal observation.
But I will tell you where I take particular exception. I dislike Jack making steroidal performance claims and then not validating those claims. Anyone who makes such outlandish claims should either prove them, or take them back. Otherwise, it just remains hanging off his nose drawing unappreciative attention to itself. I do not believe that anyone can regularly make 3 times the daily range, or average 4-7% a day. I donât think that any trader who has actually traded for any length of time would believe such bullshit. Am I just projecting my own limitations? Perhaps. But I donât think so.
Further, I dislike Jackâs condescension towards, and belittling of, anyone who does not trade in his manner or see the markets in exactly the same way that he does. It is one thing to disagree. It is quite another to condescend. He started it. It irks me.
Also, it is fairly clear that some of Jackâs more sycophantic supporters have probably never traded, or at least have not yet traded his methods for any length of time. The nature and tenor of their posts leave little doubt. This, too, I find irksome. I do not think you are a poseur. However, I believe there are poseurs among you.
So why do I bother? Like you said, I look for chinks in the armor. It is what I used to do in my banking career in corporate lending and account management. Whenever we renewed a clientâs credit facilities or extended additional credit, we looked at the financials and the story (management, products/services, market, client base, suppliers, etc.). We looked for chinks in the armor. And whenever you find one, you pull at the string until you see where it leads. Almost always, a chink leads to something more. Just like you seldom ever find only one cockroach.
That, and it passes the time.
