Q for Grob109

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from jvbraun:

Hi laz,



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.

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.

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?

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
More...

Hey Jerome,

I appreciate the truthful feedback before other people venture down this process that Jack lays out.

I would say that 1 out of 5 might agree with what he sais. Out of those 1's, probably half get to the point where they are making money using what he offers. The reason is because Jack really DOES NOT teach.

"The truism that always applies is: if you can recognize something; then you can solve it. The only things you cannot solve are those you can't recognize."

The above is a quote of a prior post by Jack. From this quote, you can gather that he chooses NOT TO teach but instead tries to help people recognize what is possible. After you recognize whats possible, he wants you to figure it out on your own(iterative refinement).

I will not lie, I wish he would do a little more hand holding to the people who are really putting in the effort(like you and David). From Jack's experience and time, he choses to teach the way he does.

Jack has his system to show you what is possible to be taken out of the market. In my opinion, rockets should only be traded for a month regardless of wins or losses and then move up to icebergs. The reason for this is because the rockets dont really give the whole system. If 1 and IF 2's should also be avoided until after you understand icebergs. Otherwise you will get really whipsawed.

The If 1 and If 2 was where i got stuck for a few months without progression as i didnt understand icebering. I am back to iceberging and see the potential that can be taken out of the market. Now I am trying to figure out when icebergs do not work like this morning.

Here is my opinion of the progression if i would do it all over again;

1 trade rockets to get into the flow of fast trends for a month
2 second month, iceberg trade using the 5 2 3 20/80 zone using linked trades
3 iceberg using the 14 1 3 50% AND macd Nuetral notes.
4 slalom the icebergs

number 3 i find is the most important as it allows you too see the "whole" picture and trade all up and down trends regardless of pace. The objective should be to hold through the whole trend regardless of pace. This will also solve "which" trend channels are important as their are always multiple trend channels in play.

These are just my thoughts. I am currently working on number 3 as I am not ready for number 4.

Best of luck Jerome.
 
great post nwb...
Quote from nwbprop:

The reason is because Jack really DOES NOT teach.

"The truism that always applies is: if you can recognize something; then you can solve it. The only things you cannot solve are those you can't recognize."

The above is a quote of a prior post by Jack. From this quote, you can gather that he chooses NOT TO teach but instead tries to help people recognize what is possible. After you recognize whats possible, he wants you to figure it out on your own(iterative refinement).
More...

I'll add my own salt and pepper on what you are saying here...
I think a better way of saying "recognizing whats possible" is
saying that Jack facilitates learning. He "reads" a person and
then presents material that will mostly likely lead to the person
making a step in gaining knowledge or an aha in their own mind.

So he is making you learn. TEACHing is yesterday's newspaper.
lol

Again - it's a cellualr automata kind of idea... knowledge of
something is a continuum -- a closed system as he said. He
looks at you and says "what place are you in" and he looks
at "what is nextdoor" in the continuum -- and he give you a
little shove. When you "get there" yourself it really sinks in
deep... you get knowledge that can lead to wisdom. Not facts.

Before this thread I wouldn't have been able to articulate
that :D. QED.

That's what makes going through the old posts so tough...
You have to make a lot of laps around the track and be able
to recognize when a certain post applies to your current place
in the "sphere" of trading knowledge. You've done this -- you
said so in a post ("read the posts 4 times and then read them
again).

great stuff everone.

Chit Chat my ASS, ET!!!

JT
 
Thanks again for taking the time to get this information out.
For me it's a Rosetta stone of a sort... and fascinating to
boot. Hopefully others will benefit equally.

JT
 
...I leave you alone for TWO WHOLE DAYS (out of town seeking dishonest employment) and your most earnest thread is consigned to Shit-Shat, while Emily Crapline's total Crip-Crap in the Psychopathology of Everyday Trading thread lives on! This only goes to prove Hypostomus' First Law of ET: "Foolishness cleverly disguised as solemnity is revered, while insufficiently insincere sobriety is mistaken for frivolity!"

Having read Jack's most generous responses, I can only reply with two observations:

If you don't understand NLP in all of its subtleties, you don't understand Jack.

And if you don't know the meaning of heuristics, and understand heuristic methods, as Jack says, Google it.

And for those of you who are REALLY subtle, look up Milton Erickson, the prime inspiration for NLP. Jack is a master of unconscious hypnotic inductions. That is no mean feat in a print medium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top