Q for Grob109
- Thread starter BA_Trader
- Start date
- Status
As an amateur, I mostly have stuck to one method all my life and just refined it as additional supports came into being. I use TA based upon the P,V relationship.
Since I knew from college that salary was not the largest income producer because of time limitations, I set out with a concept of having a twin stream of income; one by doing time based work and the other by "owning" enterprises.
I have made some lists as you requested and I am surprised at how things went. Strange as it may seem, I am most influenced by myself. We all are.
I missed a lot along the way but I have been fortunate to have many milestones pop up at good times. The barest minimum of time markers for me are:
Boy Scout Merit Badge Handbooks and doing merit badges and "Rhythm of the Redman".
The out-of-doors through college. 500 days in the field.
Science and technology. Professional work. 5 years
Supporting Learning 10 years initially.
Environment, Energy, Food, Architecture, Problem Solving. 20 years
Entrepreneurial Stuff. 25 years.
The 60 years overlap a little and it was a progression. By 14 I was an Eagle Scout and did O of A and I spent high school years continually making costumes and learning Native American rituals and dancing. I did science fairs and skipped biology and physics classes by being excused to study organic chemistry ,etc. I found that testing, for me, wasn't going to explain where I was coming from.
I did three majors in college: CH Eng, Arch, and EE (uhf and electronics minors). English, Phys, and Bus Admin in grad schools. I had a flat curve on aptitude vis a vis areas of study.
I chose to work in a corporation that was not associated with any military endeavors. My summer work ended that permenantly, although I had a lifetime offer from WECO and I was appointed as an MTS at BTL before receiving my Masters.
IBM was deja vu for me on my first job. I left after 5 yeas and was asked to stay with incentives offered that were very unusual.
There is a line in the sand here. What happened to me up to this point is very telling. My world opened up with merit badges and how culture tied to the Earth. So I became a "seeker". Working my way through school was my first problem so that I arranged a balance of jobs, food and sleep. I always took extra credits on the fixed fee tuition arrangement at RPI. I got to a balance of four jobs, two meals a day and four hours sleep. I acquired no debt in college. Loosing the work ethic came hard for me. I also was intolerant of not understanding what I was studying mostly since I wanted my money's worth.
In a single hour in a single stroke, I emerged from the above because of the help of one person who could see me for my potential to contribute something. He was unable to get me on a track that he wanted for me (a staffer on his faculty), but he cut through all the crap to counsel me on money and what money is. I got it and went to work to figure out the possibilites and how life could work with it. I had "poor" down very well for many years and, suddenly, I was presented with unlimited potential for wealth.
So I became a "seeker" and I was given a picture of the unlimitied potential for wealth that is available to everyone. The next 50 years I looked around and did things I liked. Always I was asked to do things. I kept choosing according to how I could fit in as a team player to improve things. It turned out that usually not much was known about what was at hand when we started out.
The specifics of your question, I worked out by making groups of things that I learned from as I went through them. I will post a sequence of them with some comments on what I gained personally in my makeup in the process. You will see why I am the way I am from this. Better still, it helps give a vantage point for making money more easily.
AS I changed from major to major, it was a consequence of working on a job or task that drew me into the next place.
I loved organic chemistry and the Navy had applied to colleges for me. I failed, finally, the Navy physical requirements, so I decided to not go to college. RPI, responded to my declining to go by offering me a job to earn my way, After my first summer at WECO as a draftsman, I got the drafting bug and switched to architecture. Dreyfus was a consultant to WECO at the time and I was taken by the "form and function stuff". After Architecture, I switched to EE because I was a jr engineer at WECO and came up with an electrical innovation vis a vis testing that more than doubled the amount of work that could be done as well as eliminating almost all subsequent downstream testing problems.
Next summer I went to BTL and was an MTS. What I learned from ALL of this and studying EE formally for a degree in a short time was that all things have character and are "contained" in a "system". By strategically testing critical aspects of the system, you get to "know" is character completely.
So I became an SA type and I arrived at IBM after graduation. deja vu vis a vis SA. To keep it short, I spent 5 years at IBM moving up and focussing on trouble shooting Data Systems (700 and 7000 series) and slipping in "fixes" on stuff. I was one of the few off the clock at IBM and they were paying for a PhD in theoretical physics. Here I ran into P. Gabriel Bergman and he grouped us into triads to do the "work". I had it made physicswise since IBM was looking ahead to man their future.
Moneywise, I had passed my salary by then in my twin stream and I was taking month's vacations in Europe (IBM paid salary as an unexpected courtesy).
I was using SA in several ways at IBM. Transitor manufacturing and 700 series speedups, RAM memories came into being and I worked on shortcutting thorough testing off mainframes. First printed circuits and automated parts assembly.
My salary became secondary and I made an interesting switch; using computers to invest. The 024 card punch and the 700 series wasn't too condusive since there were few "instructions" then and techtronix scopes were just getting to dc stuff.
Darvas was unknown to me, then but I had "spawned" a real bunch of IBM'ers doing charts and brownlining out of the blueprint room. We were all doing the cycles of 6 to 8 days for 10% min.
I got a lot of heat from the SEC for the first time. The head of IBM (Watson) and the head of TANG (tang) made a joint statement publically to straighten it out. The humor in the matter was astounding. MLPFB was ultimately admonished.
I regard this as the first cool application of SA in a TA context that moved markets by the action of amateurs followed by broker rumoring all over the place. I may have been on the phone with Ida Green but I never talked to anyone on route 128. I had been working with the SA concept of the Boolean expressions for the basic relationship of Price and Volume. We all charted and had proven that the P, V relation describes all chart formations. We had a master chart of 6 months on 11x17 format (both P and V below it) and we circulated daily charts as blue prints. because we all had accounts that originated in Poughkeepsie then to NYC and we acted in concert, we learned how to do the "push" thing using the P, V relationship.
It was nothing to meet and agree that we needed to do the sequences preceeding the "buy" cycles. So "what wasn't that?" was invented as a way to deal with FBO's.
I was an attractive nuisence by that time. But what we had was a lot of math available that defined the P,V relationship and we knew that all the formations we were drawing followed it and that volume was a leading indicator of price.
So we looked at a set of formations that preceeded "buy" and made sure that we were covering the exchanges with daily charts. We did a weird thing with "saved" last pages of the WSJ. We "back plotted" 6 months of charts to enlarge our universe at a days notice. We wanted stocks that "performed". That is, stocks that were repeatable and always going up on a carrier slope.
By this time, I was being invited to join in on corporate stockholder stuff. I got into the situation of being a significant holder unknowingly.
So far, I am operating on SA and using the P,V relationship to get formations to allow effective trading. The TA charting lead to getting "universes" by back plotting that functioned to "fit" making money. Darvas was getting ready to write his book about this time and I had one hit from the SEC by then.
As my life proceeded, I was free of work after leaving IBM and I started my learning process about how things work.
I loved organic chemistry and the Navy had applied to colleges for me. I failed, finally, the Navy physical requirements, so I decided to not go to college. RPI, responded to my declining to go by offering me a job to earn my way, After my first summer at WECO as a draftsman, I got the drafting bug and switched to architecture. Dreyfus was a consultant to WECO at the time and I was taken by the "form and function stuff". After Architecture, I switched to EE because I was a jr engineer at WECO and came up with an electrical innovation vis a vis testing that more than doubled the amount of work that could be done as well as eliminating almost all subsequent downstream testing problems.
Next summer I went to BTL and was an MTS. What I learned from ALL of this and studying EE formally for a degree in a short time was that all things have character and are "contained" in a "system". By strategically testing critical aspects of the system, you get to "know" is character completely.
So I became an SA type and I arrived at IBM after graduation. deja vu vis a vis SA. To keep it short, I spent 5 years at IBM moving up and focussing on trouble shooting Data Systems (700 and 7000 series) and slipping in "fixes" on stuff. I was one of the few off the clock at IBM and they were paying for a PhD in theoretical physics. Here I ran into P. Gabriel Bergman and he grouped us into triads to do the "work". I had it made physicswise since IBM was looking ahead to man their future.
Moneywise, I had passed my salary by then in my twin stream and I was taking month's vacations in Europe (IBM paid salary as an unexpected courtesy).
I was using SA in several ways at IBM. Transitor manufacturing and 700 series speedups, RAM memories came into being and I worked on shortcutting thorough testing off mainframes. First printed circuits and automated parts assembly.
My salary became secondary and I made an interesting switch; using computers to invest. The 024 card punch and the 700 series wasn't too condusive since there were few "instructions" then and techtronix scopes were just getting to dc stuff.
Darvas was unknown to me, then but I had "spawned" a real bunch of IBM'ers doing charts and brownlining out of the blueprint room. We were all doing the cycles of 6 to 8 days for 10% min.
I got a lot of heat from the SEC for the first time. The head of IBM (Watson) and the head of TANG (tang) made a joint statement publically to straighten it out. The humor in the matter was astounding. MLPFB was ultimately admonished.
I regard this as the first cool application of SA in a TA context that moved markets by the action of amateurs followed by broker rumoring all over the place. I may have been on the phone with Ida Green but I never talked to anyone on route 128. I had been working with the SA concept of the Boolean expressions for the basic relationship of Price and Volume. We all charted and had proven that the P, V relation describes all chart formations. We had a master chart of 6 months on 11x17 format (both P and V below it) and we circulated daily charts as blue prints. because we all had accounts that originated in Poughkeepsie then to NYC and we acted in concert, we learned how to do the "push" thing using the P, V relationship.
It was nothing to meet and agree that we needed to do the sequences preceeding the "buy" cycles. So "what wasn't that?" was invented as a way to deal with FBO's.
I was an attractive nuisence by that time. But what we had was a lot of math available that defined the P,V relationship and we knew that all the formations we were drawing followed it and that volume was a leading indicator of price.
So we looked at a set of formations that preceeded "buy" and made sure that we were covering the exchanges with daily charts. We did a weird thing with "saved" last pages of the WSJ. We "back plotted" 6 months of charts to enlarge our universe at a days notice. We wanted stocks that "performed". That is, stocks that were repeatable and always going up on a carrier slope.
By this time, I was being invited to join in on corporate stockholder stuff. I got into the situation of being a significant holder unknowingly.
So far, I am operating on SA and using the P,V relationship to get formations to allow effective trading. The TA charting lead to getting "universes" by back plotting that functioned to "fit" making money. Darvas was getting ready to write his book about this time and I had one hit from the SEC by then.
As my life proceeded, I was free of work after leaving IBM and I started my learning process about how things work.
Ouch. Straw. Camel.
As someone who has been on the receiving end of this stuff for years, I must doubt this statement.
Over these years, I've never heard from anyone who actually "got it" by reading Jack's stuff or interacting with him. No one. I've interacted with Jack in live text and audio chat for months during two separate times -- no one "got it". I certainly tried though. Perhaps my experience was unique.
As unreasonable as the emotion is, I admit at the end of this day that I now feel that my trust and good faith have been abused in these matters. Silly, isn't that? I chalk it up to my personal quirks.
--
Jerome
Fascinating stuff. Thanks for taking the time to get these
posts out.
By observation - it seems that divide and conquer and iterative
refinement are two problem solving techniques that you favor...
Were these things (consciously) in your mental picture at the
time you left IBM? Perhaps I'm getting ahead of your posts
here
Also Q's on acronyms:
O of A = ?
WECO = Westinghouse?
BTL = ? (I gave up on this one)
SA = Systems Analyst?
TANG = ?
MLPFB = ?
saying "what wasn't that" -- is quite amusing and memorable for
me. I would love to see a comic short made.
Thanks again
JT
posts out.
By observation - it seems that divide and conquer and iterative
refinement are two problem solving techniques that you favor...
Were these things (consciously) in your mental picture at the
time you left IBM? Perhaps I'm getting ahead of your posts
here
Also Q's on acronyms:
O of A = ?
WECO = Westinghouse?
BTL = ? (I gave up on this one)
SA = Systems Analyst?
TANG = ?
MLPFB = ?
Aside: Your "picture" with the lighthouse keeper waking up and
saying "what wasn't that" -- is quite amusing and memorable for
me. I would love to see a comic short made.
Thanks again
JT
I feel that it is possible that there is no single method that will work for everyone. I also feel that almost anyone can make good money trading.
I see my job in this mix as one where I try to transfer what I do to others. As it turns out I started out and continued using one particular approach as will be seen.
To date, I have not been too skilled at getting deeply into making money. Transference, as I see it comes down to having a true belief system and keeping your emotions tuned up and in balance.
So far, about 1 in 5 can get to a place where they seriously consider going through the process. Since I work from the viewpoint of "going to where the person is" and then progressing along as the person develops, it is a matter for me to "get it" rather than the other person to "get it". What I have to "get" is the setting of the person's beliefs and emotions. Luckily the market always provides a context. In groups, I prefer to let the group run the show by giving me the range of what is on the table. It is extremely unfair for me to "do my thing" and expect others to just jump aboard and follow me. Teaching doesn't work as I see it. On the other hand, learning is a process that can be supported.
A track record of 1 in 5 is not very good by some standards. Many would consider it a failure.
I agree that there are ways of doing things. Pragmatically, ihad to get a book (Magee 4th Ed), design some gragh paper blanks (17 points (Arithmetic scale) in 1/8ths by two quarters five days a week.), (I inked it in three line weights.) and do standard graphing of HLC and volume below on a separate chart.
After that I drew formations and bounds (channels). The P, V relationship as two boolean asymmetric expressions were used to check all formations. The 1:2 lissajoux pattern of P against V was obvious from day one. The orthagonal aspect of the halves of the P,V relationship usually took people several passes to get understood.
This was a time when the Dow was about the only deal in town and it included three sectors that moved in 8 posible combinations.
You cannot understand what it was like calling in orders and not wanting to send a written letter of confirmation as was suggested by the guy that I got handed to.
By the time I put five years into investing at IBM, there were consequences. I had been promoted as fast as it happens they told me. I had stock options at IBM by then. I did trade around the Executivecommittee of the Board of IBM and it provoked a response right up (or down the admin line) and I was required to comment. At that time IBM had 80% of the world market. the Board, for excellent reasons related to keeping growth at warp speed, kept the price of the stcok in a given range by periodic splits. I bought before the announcements and sold after the split peak and repurchased on the immediate following dip. Net effect: "I was being disloyal and making more money than even .........did."
What was in my picture about making money was that is was systematic to the nth degree and that the efficiency was two fold. One the market gave it out and investors grew their capital.
I simply started an iterative refinement process on two fronts.
What you suggest as doing it came from both aspects found in calculus: differential and integral analysis of the parallel systems. Me and the market.
In architecture where i entered late, I made it a deliberate choice to refine my initial design and not do several designs and then advance the best. We had blind juries (no one's name was on their work that was not covered for the juryies. We were ranked and I did not work in other than ink, pencil or washes (greys). I picked a time of day for my presentation and each and every shadow was drawn with projections from vanishing points. In effect, I did photos of the designs. This includes the landscaping as well.
So you are looking at a person who could "see" the potential of the markets as infinite. My job was to see the potential offered and how it worked and also to see my potential and arrange to use it to extract capital efficiently.
I was in this groove and my broker was in a astate of shock. And it all spread to other accounts in Poughkeepsie. Then the SEC appeared.
- Status