Proof that the Hershey Method is Bogus

I submit for your displeasure the following set of seven systems. From top to bottom they represent going long (short) on an upchange (downchange) of 1 through 7 ticks respectively. The most casual observation shows that regardless of ANY other supplementary rule, you will get killed with no stop. Those who imagine that I create these conundra to make Spydertrader think critically about the method are deluding themselves about the importance to me of SCT.
 

Attachments

Quote from Joe Doaks:

I submit for your displeasure the following set of seven systems. From top to bottom they represent going long (short) on an upchange (downchange) of 1 through 7 ticks respectively. The most casual observation shows that regardless of ANY other supplementary rule, you will get killed with no stop. Those who imagine that I create these conundra to make Spydertrader think critically about the method are deluding themselves about the importance to me of SCT.

No one cares T28 you multihandle wanker other people have better things to do. You I am sure have to start creating a new Hershey thread as this one is over 5 mins old. So get on with it you sad prick.
 
Quote from Bogan7:

No one cares T28 you multihandle wanker other people have better things to do. You I am sure have to start creating a new Hershey thread as this one is over 5 mins old. So get on with it you sad prick.

Hey man, Joey Dokey is Hypostomus. We tolerate him 'cos he's funny.

T28 is just sad though and probably a wanker too.

(Lateral on DAX.)
 
Quote from factbased:

We needed proof after Jack couldn't make money in a trading contest?


Those who can, do
those who can't, sell stuff , are broker, teacher,etc...
 
Quote from Joe Doaks:

I submit for your displeasure the following set of seven systems. From top to bottom they represent going long (short) on an upchange (downchange) of 1 through 7 ticks respectively. The most casual observation shows that regardless of ANY other supplementary rule, you will get killed with no stop. Those who imagine that I create these conundra to make Spydertrader think critically about the method are deluding themselves about the importance to me of SCT.
What is this dogshit?
Is there anyone more bogus than you (High Potty Miss) and all your idiot aliases at ET? :p
 
Joe, the flaw in your analysis is that Jack's basically said that it's not possible for real people to see/understand what he and his followers are doing. Here are his exact words that I saved from a thread that's been deleted:

Quote from jack hershey:

Snip, snip, snip...

What often happens is people cannot see what is being provided even though it is up and on displays and a print is being made as well.

Take bighog, etal, he can't see trades being taken. It is not a case of "who knows why" We do know why he can't see them being done.

When a person encounters us for the first time, they have no possibility of following the action. This is not a fault finding statement. The statement is just a comment on how very foreign we are to others and the way they think.

For another person to recognize what I or Spyder or others are doing requires that the person can focus and concentrate mentally on what we ask them to think about.

Most people are unable the first few times to maintain their attention on the screen and be able to comprehend what I am saying. I am speaking to them in a foreign language for a while until they make a few decisions.

There is about no one who would be able to trust people like us and trust what we do as any sort of reality. This is a good survival technique for these people. there is no chance that they can reverse the damage that they have done to their minds.

Let me explain what it is like for an expert trader to see what we do. They have one reaction. Only one reaction. They tabulate the offset between our trades and their trades and this involves the frequency too. They do see the trades. They do see when we both trade and and they see when only one of us is doing a trade.

There is no way anything about the template or the methods is put to bed by others who do not know what is going on. there is just a mismatch in the application of conventional wisdom to what we do and expecting an answer that resolves things. That is not really possible for most people to figure out or to even become conscious of.

We use a binary vector computer approach that precludes probabilities being part of anything because they are not possible to use. This is so far out of the box of NN and BA people that they cannot envision the approach.

What has become a wakeup call from us is what is going to put the CW to bed over the next few years. It is not possible to apply CW to this innovation to put the Q's to bed that are based on CW.
 
Back
Top