Q for Grob109

[laziz314159]

Quote from jvbraun:

<snip>
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.
<snip>

--
Jerome

I think nwbprop and CE are making $$. Noone's heard from dawg, AFAIK

As far as I see it, the learning process is this:

Find one thing that works (Jack calls some of them 'gimmicks'). Believe in it. Make money with it. And go broader and deeper from there (w/ sequencing, etc.). The corrollary is that, if you're already making money in the market, add something from Jack's arsenal to improve what you're already doing.

"Gimmicks" that Jack has proposed:

A. Rockets (unfortunately for the paltalk group last fall, these didn't happen often enough to keep everyone on an even keel EQ-wise)

A. 2pair (although this requires a good read on squ/str and DOM at the same time)

B. VDU BO's (pretty simple, and in combination with rockets should be enough to keep anyone occupied)

C. Other bracketing: formations (pennants), centering, etc.

Some things that seem to have "gotten lost" from Jack's older posts elsewhere:

1. Debriefing after every losing trade, for 3x the time in the trade.

2. Developing your monitoring process such that the monitoring (stop logs, c&r, drawing channels) is the action, and trades are the consequences of that action.

3. Limiting monitoring to 2 hours a day at first, to build attention span.

4. Draw channels agressively (see some other posts where jack does a series of channels that overlaps).

Erm, that was wordy. Here's the ideal sequence:

pick one thing that works --> make some money, replacing bad pictures/ fixing eq stuff along the way--> $$ motivates you to do the sequencing --> add stuff to the one thing that works --> make more money --> $$ motivates you, etc. etc...

Here's what usually happens:

pick rockets --> make some money --> lose some money --> get totally unbalanced -->lose some more money --> read more Jack, add something --> the second or third step ad infinitum (or ad balance accountum nil).

The important thing is fixing the eq stuff (not exactly a new idea), or the rest of the process is screwed.

The way I look at it, fixing the EQ stuff is necessary for trading in both 'edgeland' and as a 'market participant' (jack style). But the returns on the latter are potentially phenomenal. If I'm going to do the work, it might as well be on the second.

A transference ratio of 1 out of 5 (say, of people who bother to start the sequencing process) isn't horribly inefficient for a messageboard context. I imagine that the rates on a one-on-one basis are higher.

Just my $0.02 Even if I never make a dime, I've sure learned a hell of a lot about the market from all this.

Best Regards,
--laz

edit: I guess this post was totally OT, but as this is ChitChat, I won't bother deleting unless requested to do so.

 

[BA_Trader]

Quote from Grob109:

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.

D&C from integrals... (as in Riemann sums)
Iterative refinement from diff-eq (as in numeric methods?
e.g. Euler?)

The gestalt of your matrix of probabilities stuff reminds me a lot
of object oriented software design... which is really just another
name for cellular automata which has roots in life sciences.
I've recently begun trying to derive your matrix on my own -- so
far all I've created is a lot marker board dust .

Also... I can relate to your comments regarding a flat learning
curve across the board. I have similar experiences as I do my
dabbling in a wide range of stuff... but not nearly on the same
scale as what you describe.

JT

 

[BA_Trader]

Laz - your post is definitely worthwhile.

Quote from laziz314159:

Here's what usually happens:

pick rockets --> make some money --> lose some money --> get totally unbalanced -->lose some more money --> read more Jack, add something --> the second or third step ad infinitum (or ad balance accountum nil).

Your forgetting the backtesters -- and "attacking jack's posts"
as an additional step for all.

 

[jvbraun]

Hi laz,

A. Rockets (unfortunately for the paltalk group last fall, these didn't happen often enough to keep everyone on an even keel EQ-wise)

My recollection is that they happened often enough. I guess one could say that they "failed" a lot. As I recall, the idea was to make something like 90 points or some such goal -- whatever happened to that? I guess those guys were the 4 out of 5.

How about the earlier stock trading episode, where the goal was to shoot for 40% in a month. I guess those guys were the 4 out of 5 too. After that were sessions on the e-mini (before the rocket episode) -- they were busts too.

I don't know. There's just something about these episodes that doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps I have a little more empathy for those guys.

4. Draw channels agressively (see some other posts where jack does a series of channels that overlaps).

Sure, I've seen them. But what is one supposed to do with all those channels? How does Jack suggest using the channels to make money, keeping in mind when you can actually draw them?

Jack's articulate and fairly intelligent, there's no doubt about it. I've no claim on him (nor want any). I do have a vested interest in whether or not I can salvage any of this work for actual trading.

I note that Jack responded to my comment that his job is to try and transfer what he does to others. I guess he is succeeding at that.

I see my job in this mix as providing some truthful feedback in support of those who are learning.

--
Jerome

 

[BA_Trader]

Quote from jvbraun:

I see my job in this mix as providing some truthful feedback in support of those who are learning.

Jerome -- this is honorable, but if you read the lead post you'll
see that you are OT... if your intentions are serious - start a
thread called "truthful feedback about Grob109" -

I'm not being snide here.

 

[jvbraun]

Thank you for the gentle reminder. Good luck.

 

[OddTrader]

Quote from ktmexc20:

BRAVO!

Hypostomus...

Hypo has explained to me by PMs that Sid is not Hypo, but Hypo is Sid.

PS: Btw, what is OT?

 

[Grob109]

This is a retype. I lost the first one...lol.

After I left IBM, where I worked was not critical from a money point of view. As a consequence, from this point on is where I began to learn for real.

Bergman was the lead person in the theoretical physics program IBM ran in situ. The triads he grouped us in for learning were remarkable enterprises. We had all at our disposal disciplinewise as well: Lipshitz, Landau etc. IBM intended to hold the science and research lead. My first investing partner was in the same triad.

I went to Greenwich Conn then to Switzerland after five years. as kids appeared we settled in Bucks County PA north of Philly.

My stint in supporting learning yielded two items. by focussing on responding to Q's, in class to cover difficulties we found that we could accelerate maturing intellectually. Aptitude on 100% samples over 8 years showed a 1.23 sigma shift in a year using a +/- 3 sigma standardized gausian curve. No yearly courses required more than the end of February to finish for the non aptitude parts. This stuff put me in contact with leading psychiatric endeavors vis a vis "growth". I considered the field but declined to work either at Zurich or U of Mich. Jim Pope, head of Jung Inst and Layman Allen of U of Mich really influenced me in those days. I advanced a theory of learning as a consequence. It is a risk and scope oriented model. People will not risk to learn if the first plateau seems insurmountable; they never know the scope which is larger, though. By organizing learning around palletable levels of change anyone will risk learning no matter how many steps are required because he can always build on prior successes. Such thorough learning leads to aptitude shifts that are not otherwise realizable.

I started to write when we got to Bucks county. I left the academics and teaching as a consequence of 35 speaking engagements the last Spring term. I had been given a free hand to choose to write to deal with "what's wrong out there?" So I chose Water Quality and people's deterministic rights. We were working as subversives re the "establishment" it turned out. But no one really knew it. We redlined PL 92-500 to "help out". Then as EPA needed an organizational design, we helped and got the EIS concept into the works. By the time the "establishment" caught on , we were designated as the Green Mafia by Joanie and Justice Douglas.

So power to the people worked out fine. The series of things unfolded via many organizations and in many places. The following organizations that I deployed with were:

Washington U- Barry Commoner, Al McGowen
Ekisitcs- Margaret and Declan Kennedy and Doxiatis
Synergistic Convergence- barabara Marx Hubbard
Club of Rome- both teams east and west coast.
Hudson Institute.- Herman Kahn.
USCS- Bucky Fuller, Ian McKarg, Kahn
ISAGA- Layman Allen, et al.

So problem solving oriented to the environment got established and we had crews on everything establishing data bases and then stopping all crap via EIS requirements which we could expose when faulty. All depended upon SA and really being exhaustive about impacts. All the proceeds from books went into bread and butter for designated not-for-profits. Earth day came.

On the money front I had moved the decimal point considerably. Also, data offerers appeared mailt distribution from sources made a weekly turnaround the norm. The electronic technologies were still along way off. Over time I wrote boolean algebra for all the early hand done stuff. It had no real apps though.

Because I was testifying and going to court, the grants aspect of research kicked in and was allowing us to get a lot done. When NSF designated our environmental stuff as a "new program" for xyz year, then it was on the way to "institutionalization" in science, technology, culture and formal government.

The chemistry of pollution, especially synergisms and inteference led to the food web, public health and human consequences. My job turned out to be SA for mostly everything and then I got to work on dealing with the money, power, information chain.

After a while I did yield to pressure to participate in corporations that solved environmental problems. Then problem solving was in demand in other areas and the "think tank" era began in earnest. You either got paid alot to think or you got a piece of the action.

The delphi process underpinning think tanks became focussed and I did a gaming oriented "modified" dephi processs that basically had goals and bounds. I wound up in econometric modelling as a consequence and dealing with the JEC and OMB.

By then I was doing AXE jobs in agencies and then came "white" papers on endemic problems.

The theme was SA always and my imprimatur became "bridging" from problems to implementable solutions.


The FES supports such effort. So the "C" corporation replaced 501's and the appropropriate technology and intermedieate technology movements incubated the E F schumacher and Fuller orientation of, respectively "small is beautiful" and "doing more with less".

I was at EOP by then and Carter gave his Cabinet Secretaries "Small is Beautiful" at their first meeting. Mike Mansfield used the MT School of mines to host this technology effort. I repped for the EOP at the planning for the US effort (NCAT) where Ceasar Chavez, Lola Redford, Shriver's OEO participated to get the US mobilized. I was Chm of the first Board.

The poor of the US were deciding on fuel or food at that time so grants were needed to solve a lot of problems for the poor and older people.

As time passed I was axing in varous gov sectors for greater public economic eficiency. WIN was dismantled, econometrics for JEC and OMB were reworked to not link energy and inflation because of EOP fear. The GPO printed and then shredded rationing stamps and we planned and cancelled a national holiday for energy conservation assessments. At one point there was a 40% operating energy short fall worst case scenario at EOP if the gulf was closed.

 

[Grob109]

So I didn't read a lot of training books for years and years. But I did document some solutions. I did continue to meet and be influenced by all kinds of problem solvers working from team to team to get the ramp ups started.

I can say that I have handed out or caused to be handed out years and years of problem solving grants and awards. Naturally, I got to go to many many sites to finesse stuff here and there.

Finally, I eased into the business of creating businesses. I wanted out of the heat and to relax a little. Taking ideas from the lab to the bench to the batch to continuous processes is the dream world of amplied science. My forte was business plans and contracting talent for capitalizing opportunities in the fields above mentioned.

Later, these priv operating companies could then be merged into agregations via TFSE's with publically traded corps; thus, you go simply from priv to public and have incredible injections of E into existing P/E ratios.

So with investing capital, I chose to use short cuts to get repeatable universes where quality was the key. I did not want to hold companies using my trading capital. On the other hand I could create capital for spawning problem solving companies in an entrepreneurial manner.

My twin stream of work and investing turned to be an entreperneurial one on the left and short term investing on the right using TA in a cyclic repeatable manner.

At some point the PC was invented. I dumped all I had going into an electronic format. Indicators which came before PC's could now be redesigned for electronic application. I had not used indicators for monitoring before I redid the defaults to solve the market pace problem created by the electronic data flow.

For analysis to get universes for repeatability, I had to begin with "sorting and ranking". I ultimately did a story board wall of lists composed from Boolean equations and used the lists in an add and delete manner day after day. This progression lead to designing the "scoring" of cycles based upon three variables. A/D was invented by then and it had a lissajoux frequency (2:1) related to volume as did volume to price. So I had a 4:2:1 frequency overlay of eight possibilities that "counted down" (BSMV, 12ax7's). lol...

My math boolean equations were applied to the universes to get timing of cycles.

Getting universes came from sector analysis which came from "value line" type sector analysis once it appeared.

When I started using the equations to detect the approaching money making cycles, I got into a better groove than ever before.

By then I was trading a lot of accounts (under 15 as a rule). And I had the proper attention of brokers. One major firm instituted staffing for TA at that time and on occasion they would add to their rating lists some TA related stocks I followed.

In this era, I got into trouble agin. By having sector analysis via value line type stuff to get sectors, by scoring cycles and using a Boolean add/delete timing story board for daily honing, and by having historical "repeatability" in the universe, I could "anticipate". so I did within an hour or so for BO's on am openings.

I did email then when it became available and before that a phone chain. The multiple accounts did me in with SEC because they "saw" insider trading in multiple accounts ahead of breakouts over and over and over. It was a struggle for them to understand their errors.

The emails got me the rath of corporations I had recommended buys on, again, as detectives, they wanted to know where I got my "insider" info.

So you can see that I maintained the initial "being pushed by the herd" of the 50's trading.

What is the source of my stuff? Iterative refinement as support systems are invented to support the approach.

There is one more thing here. The SA always oriented me to the whole. I looked at the whole doing synthesis and doing analysis. Just like the two aspects of calculus as a parallel: differential and integral. Who knew that Leibnitz and Newton worked contemporarily on calculus each from a different viewpoint both headed to the same place.

If you treat the market as a whole from day one and learn to do low risk stuff first, learning plateau by plateau you can succeed from day one. Naturally macro doesn't work. Only micro works and it issimply a selection process based upon the repeatability of the P, V relation in the universes that work the best.

Recently, IBD was invented to fit along side the WSJ. Since IBD came upwith percentile groupings of quality desriptors. A lot can be done on web sites and it is very quick.

When I started getting into DJXX, it was at the request of some commodities types who did coarse and fine grains all familiar to me as a nutritionist for large animals and fowls.

All I had to do was set up the paradigm and determine how to operate to efficiently remove capital from a simpler zero sum game. Two efficiencies. Coupling them and optimizing the connection. It worked 50 times better was how it turned out. This means that you use SCT to make money just as if the futures works many times faster (6) than the equities.

It was all done on phones at first. So you had a lot of record keeping. I did "bunched" trades and they were resolved after market to assure fairness.

Today, all is electronic on futures for me. Someone suggested that I could still trade if it came down to just price and volume; that is, if I stopped using other aspects of what I suggest. That is true but having them makes it a short cut for stepping up the successive plateau to getting as much as possible out of the market.

 

[Spydertrader]

Having studied Jack's Methods for over a year and traded his "equities" methodology for 6 months, I have nothing but praise for both the man and his methods. I remain truly thankful he spent his valuable time teaching.

I first stumbled onto Jack's brilliance through the archives of Usenet. After finding several web sites containing years worth of archived 'Jack Material,' I began to read. Weeks passed as I sorted through the various documents - each providing a small piece of a puzzle. One day, I had an 'AHA!' moment. How could I NOT have seen this sooner? My brain simply wasn't in the right place. Jack wasn't just teaching people how to trade. He wanted them to learn how to think.

It wasn't very long before I recognized the method by which Jack imparted his knowledge. He raised the bar substantially, so that those individuals that truly had an interest AND a desire to learn would do so. He didn't just hand out the "formula" for success. Some felt he was holding back. Others proclaimed him a charlatan, and posted on ET calling him a fraud. Neither could be further from the truth.

I continued studying Jack's teachings here on ET, and at the MSN Groups Board along with many others. Several members took it upon themselves to assist in the process sharing their tips for automating the methods, and working the system to trade in real time. I posted my exact methods on the MSN Boards recently as have many others in the past.

I attended the Paltalk sessions on trading the ES and on trading equities. Since I had experience trading equities before I ran into Jack, I decided to follow equities leaving the ES for the future. Now, I can't speak to the success of his ES System (as I only trade equities), but if it is half as good as what he has already taught me, I look forward to learning it.

I had the distinct pleasure of talking with Jack in the Paltalk Classroom one afternoon. I arrived to test out Paltalk having never used the software. Only two people in the room at the time: Jack and myself. Jack explained to me why he had such a strong desire to share his methods with others. He said that if people would learn to make loads of money, pockets of wealth would be created across the country and the world. With wealth, he said, one can do tremendous things - fantastic good works for those less fortunate. jack then told me about his friend that provides scholarships to deserving students out of his own pocket and without notoriety or fanfare. If one can be judged by the company one keeps, then certainly Jack keeps great company. I count myself fortunate to be in jack's company as well.

Jack asked little in return for his generosity. He did however make one small request: Once we mastered the methods to take profit from the market, we would in turn, teach others as he has taught us. Also, any automation developed by the group would be available for ALL to use. No proprietary stuff. I continue to keep both promises to Jack.

After six months, the results of my trades have been extraordinary. In the past three months, I have made ten trades -each one showing a significant profit. It really is as Jack says: "Like taking water from a fountain." I owe my success to Jack's desire to share his knowledge. For that, I will be forever grateful.