Didn't you just "bump" this thread? 
Robert Sheckley,Jack Hershey,Jules Verne...
- Thread starter hkrahra
- Start date
I've had my own approach since the late 90's, didn't learn about who Jack was until maybe 5 years ago. Sorry to disappoint ya! 
Quote from R. Raskolnikov:
I've had my own approach since the late 90's, didn't learn about who Jack was until maybe 5 years ago. Sorry to disappoint ya!
Dip-buying, long only, ras?
Aren't you jealous of Mr. Hershey making 3 times the daily range...EVERYDAY!
Doesn't that make you jealous at how obscenely rich you would be if that were the case?
I'm waiting on someone's cue, because this is yet another fantasy of Mr. Hershey, making the latest 2 a 60+sharpe ratio backtest that's nowhere to be found but in his head, and now the author of a new book about PTSD.
He must be some piece of work at age 88.
I don't know if english is a second language for you, hkrahra, but I do not know what a "financial suit" is, either.
Financial Suitability? But that doesn't make sense, maybe clarify your question.
But if your point is to draw on the bible for the ability to be creative, Robert Sheckley, Jack Hershey, and Jules Verne have nothing to do with this, and only results will ever tell you the truth.
Jack's a failure, so you will never get your financial suit anyway.
Quote from hkrahra:
English 2-nd,Jigurda-3d
"A financial suit" is a suit of 5 books on financial. Jack doesnt want to send me.
My point is no one can learn a subject just by reading the author.You have to have a Mentor for that!
You make good and proper points.
I have mentioned these five books over the years. Their names and outlines have appeared on the webb as well. The books are just a culling and boiling down, topically, the five main themes of trading.
FYI Groups of books with similar themes by one or more authors are sometimes referred to as "suites" of books.
The organization I work with has agreed with us that it is not in the interest of any of us to advance the deeply systematic and detailed public information on the paradigm and its three applications. the reason for this is that there is competition among organizations in the financial industry. Our systemized approach will be perceived by others as "out of the box" and not important for a certain length window. At that time they will recognize their time and performnce disadvantage. In the financial industry traditions prevail; when traditions get compared to alternatives, then traditional operations tend to lose client populations.
I call your attention to the comparison of mutual funds and ETF's over the last 18 years.
For example, Fidelity is now considering becoming a significant player. In contrast look at Vangard which invented Mutual Funds and how Vangard has made it market in ETF's as well.
So far, we have been able to walk a path having a very narrow band. Those who catch on to the paradigm use parts or all of it and help others of like mind. Others become very vocal detractors and they capture many many people who are of a similar character. This creates among this type of person a belief to stay away from our users and us. So we have worked for a long time to build a wall in the public domain. Those who do the building and maintanance on the wall can be called upon on a moments notice to go right back to work. Largely is it a simple cut and paste operation based upon errors others before them have made. As such a terrific myth has been built.
The myth is rich and powerful and presents a wall of mythical proportions for the formal organized financial industry to reject.
We almost made the mistake of publishing a deep highly organized pathway to riches.
Some people have, at their initiative, allowed a non stratified random sample of people to vertify how successfully we built the wall. There was one failure, however. Gibberishman, Covel, did not have the respect to help sell the myth. That happens. We gave him, directly, the key to the paradigm, but he could not process it mentally, so he deemed it gibberish.
So back to your informative comments.
Reading doesn't work.
Mentoring does work.
The key to any learning is mind building, if still possible.
The final expert result of knowing how markets work is "unconscious competence". In neuro-science terms this is called a fully differentiated mind.
Drills are the mechanism that establish the inference pieces.
The mind automatically assembles the pieces into a spectrum.
The mind raises questions to use the respective answers to strengthen weaker spots in the spectrum.
I could go to work on anyone's mind here. I could build that person's mind to shape it to do what is required. Look at bow wow's mind, for example. I can turn him on with a single sentence; of course he quotes it to prove to you I turned him on. He is here with us now claiming BS on a totally new topic for him (aside from the list he is now carrying around everywhere). The Bloxs one was a real cutie.
