The Stochastic Indicator
- Thread starter jack hershey
- Start date
- Status
I can't believe people are still trying to decipher this babble. If you want a good summary of the beginner level, just pick up a copy of 'The Compleat Daytrader' by Jake Bernstein, as this is the source of the method, though you won't find it credited here. Beyond that, you really do have to spend hours trying to understand the nonsense spouted out by Jack. I don't understand why anyone would want to, because pretty soon he will have you trading 10 times in a day and wiping out your account in commission costs. Maybe I am wrong on this, but who knows, because only the elite few that understand Jack-Talk really know when you are supposed to trade. Of course they won't explain anything to you, because you have to "earn" the knowledge by wasting your hours trying to see the "logic" behind the ravings of a madman. BTW, Am I the only one that notices a striking similarity in the writing styles of Hershey and a few of his greatest believers? Makes you wonder...
baggerlord
I dont understand how one can compare jake's stoch pop and jack's rocket setup. jake is using stoch only. and thats not good enough, imo.
so try to read this thread from the beginning and then try to compare the 2 setups again.
jack's setup is much better, and much better explained,imo(even in jack-language)
I dont understand how one can compare jake's stoch pop and jack's rocket setup. jake is using stoch only. and thats not good enough, imo.
so try to read this thread from the beginning and then try to compare the 2 setups again.
jack's setup is much better, and much better explained,imo(even in jack-language)
OK, so he added the Macd filter. Good for him. How about a little credit to the guy who came up with the concept in the first place? Of course just adding to an idea isn't nearly as sexy as being the grand-wizard of it all, is it now? Probably wouldn't attract nearly enough ego-stroking on here.
For one thing, maybe Bernstein stole it from Jack. Who's been around longer. Furthermore, if you're stuck on stochastics, you're not even getting 1% of what Jack is doing. It's not about setups, it's not about indicators, it's not about edges. The people progressing here are the ones that understand that.
Baggerlord
I have both of Jake's books. You need to read this thread and then come back. Jack has added SEVERAL things that Jake does not discuss. Jack himself has stated that a hobby of his is taking good ideas and integrating them in a comprehensive method, so he is not stealing anything.
When this thread started, everyone here was a skeptic. Dawg and Tampa simply decided to start trading the method, took losses, got fixed and are now very well in the the black. In fact, EVERYONE who took the time to learn this is very well in the black.
It seems to me that you do not readily understand this approach, so it must be bunk. That does not make even a little sense.
If you want to debunk this old man, trade the system, and post your results. If you are a still a losing trader 2 weeks from now, I will start an individual thread and apologize in public, and say how much of an idiot we all are for following "the ravings of a madman"
Until then, observe the money velocity for yourself.
Now mind you, I let this thread sit for 2 months, before I opened it. So you are talking to a former skeptic.
Regards
Oddi
Actually I just spent the last 4 hours reading the whole thread and I take back what I said. There is some good stuff here and I am certainly going to incorporate parts of it into my trading style. I would like to apologize to Jack for calling him a "madman". 
Thanks for all the time you've put into this thread.
Thanks for all the time you've put into this thread.Baggerlord,
That was big of you to admit you were wrong. Good on you. I've been - silently - following this thread since it began. I've found it absolutely fascinating. Without a doubt, it is the most interesting thread on ET - and that's saying a lot. However, since I don't trade the indexes (I trade currencies) I haven't participated in discussions. But I wanted to say that Jack has been teaching on a number of levels here. On the one hand, he's been teaching a trading method that uses stochastics among other devices. But more importantly, IMO, he's been nudging people down a path to a kind of enlightenment. That may sound corny and your former cronies in the anti-Jack camp are probably splitting a gut right now. But the truth is, that's what's going on. Jack's concept of thinking in sequences is absolutely marvelous. We do this all the time, of course, in many, many different situations. But we're not necessarily conscious of it. In this thread, he has been making us aware of the various sequences that recur in trading, encouraging us to learn them inside and out, and teaching us how to exploit them. Whether people here eventually trade his style or not, that's an incredibly powerful piece of learning to take away.
Just a thought...
Sports metaphors can be very useful to make a point. Here are a few to ponder. I see MA crossover traders as similar to home-run sluggers in baseball. There's not much thinking involved in what these players do. They step up to the place, swing for all they're worth and hope for the best.
Buy-on-the-dip, profit-target traders (that's me in currencies) are more like base hitters. We pick our spots more carefully, but still we're mostly swinging blind.
What Jack does is he takes us out of the ballpark and into the hockey arena. When you're trading Hershey-style, you're more like a goalie. Imagine you're crouched in your net and steaming towards you over the blue line is Brett Hull with the puck and Steve Yzerman on his wing.
You're watching closely for clues as to what will unfold. Hull's got a great slapshot. He may use it at any time. Or he could take a wrist shot. Or he might pass to Yzerman. Or he might try to skate around the back of the net and pass back to the point. Etc. You move to the top of the crease to cut off the angle. Hull's bearing down. At a certain point, as your defenseman cuts over and begins to tie him up, you conclude that he's not going to be making a slapshot on this rush. So you back into your net and watch for the wrist shot or the pass. You see, as you waited and watched, a whole set of sequences - those that begin with a slapshot - was eliminated. Now you can focus on the sequence types that remain as possibilities. Those that begin with wrist shots, those that begin with passes, those that begin with circling behind the net. Next, your other defenseman cuts across and tangles up Yzerman. You now are confident that Yzerman would not be able to score on a pass it if came to him. This means you don't have to move away from your optimum position to guard against a Hull wrist shot. Another sequence eliminated. Now you can concentrate on watching for signs that Hull will take a wrist shot. As a seasoned goalie, there are a number of clues that you would look for. Don't ask me what they are, I'm not a goalie. But that's one of the reasons professional goalies make it to the top. They learn to read the play. Meanwhile, you're also factoring in that your defenseman is still battling with Hull to deny him a shot. As I see it, these clues that a goalie would routinely watch for during a hockey game are analogous to the various clues Jack has been teaching us to look for in our trading. He has used stochastics and MACD, but I'm certain he could use quite a few different indicator combinations and get the same results he talks about. Okay, I take that back. Like everyone else, I'm still waiting to see his method generate more than the daily range per day) Oh happy day!. So I'm not certain. But I will say that I've read every word in this thread a few times and, IMO, it all holds together. Plus Dawg, Vorzo and a few others are getting good like trade results for the levels they have reached.
Baggerlord, in case my point is lost in all of this, what I wanted to stress was that the specifics of how Jack uses indicators is not the only value here. He's been working very hard to get people see trading in a particular way. And I encourage you to keep rereading his posts if you need to until you figure out what he's saying. There's got to be a good reason he has focused so much on this part of the equation, don't you agree?
Now if only he would make it easier by not expressing himself like a Russian hockey coach.
Regards,
chaos
That was big of you to admit you were wrong. Good on you. I've been - silently - following this thread since it began. I've found it absolutely fascinating. Without a doubt, it is the most interesting thread on ET - and that's saying a lot. However, since I don't trade the indexes (I trade currencies) I haven't participated in discussions. But I wanted to say that Jack has been teaching on a number of levels here. On the one hand, he's been teaching a trading method that uses stochastics among other devices. But more importantly, IMO, he's been nudging people down a path to a kind of enlightenment. That may sound corny and your former cronies in the anti-Jack camp are probably splitting a gut right now. But the truth is, that's what's going on. Jack's concept of thinking in sequences is absolutely marvelous. We do this all the time, of course, in many, many different situations. But we're not necessarily conscious of it. In this thread, he has been making us aware of the various sequences that recur in trading, encouraging us to learn them inside and out, and teaching us how to exploit them. Whether people here eventually trade his style or not, that's an incredibly powerful piece of learning to take away.
Just a thought...
Sports metaphors can be very useful to make a point. Here are a few to ponder. I see MA crossover traders as similar to home-run sluggers in baseball. There's not much thinking involved in what these players do. They step up to the place, swing for all they're worth and hope for the best.
Buy-on-the-dip, profit-target traders (that's me in currencies) are more like base hitters. We pick our spots more carefully, but still we're mostly swinging blind.
What Jack does is he takes us out of the ballpark and into the hockey arena. When you're trading Hershey-style, you're more like a goalie. Imagine you're crouched in your net and steaming towards you over the blue line is Brett Hull with the puck and Steve Yzerman on his wing.
You're watching closely for clues as to what will unfold. Hull's got a great slapshot. He may use it at any time. Or he could take a wrist shot. Or he might pass to Yzerman. Or he might try to skate around the back of the net and pass back to the point. Etc. You move to the top of the crease to cut off the angle. Hull's bearing down. At a certain point, as your defenseman cuts over and begins to tie him up, you conclude that he's not going to be making a slapshot on this rush. So you back into your net and watch for the wrist shot or the pass. You see, as you waited and watched, a whole set of sequences - those that begin with a slapshot - was eliminated. Now you can focus on the sequence types that remain as possibilities. Those that begin with wrist shots, those that begin with passes, those that begin with circling behind the net. Next, your other defenseman cuts across and tangles up Yzerman. You now are confident that Yzerman would not be able to score on a pass it if came to him. This means you don't have to move away from your optimum position to guard against a Hull wrist shot. Another sequence eliminated. Now you can concentrate on watching for signs that Hull will take a wrist shot. As a seasoned goalie, there are a number of clues that you would look for. Don't ask me what they are, I'm not a goalie. But that's one of the reasons professional goalies make it to the top. They learn to read the play. Meanwhile, you're also factoring in that your defenseman is still battling with Hull to deny him a shot. As I see it, these clues that a goalie would routinely watch for during a hockey game are analogous to the various clues Jack has been teaching us to look for in our trading. He has used stochastics and MACD, but I'm certain he could use quite a few different indicator combinations and get the same results he talks about. Okay, I take that back. Like everyone else, I'm still waiting to see his method generate more than the daily range per day
) Oh happy day!. So I'm not certain. But I will say that I've read every word in this thread a few times and, IMO, it all holds together. Plus Dawg, Vorzo and a few others are getting good like trade results for the levels they have reached.Baggerlord, in case my point is lost in all of this, what I wanted to stress was that the specifics of how Jack uses indicators is not the only value here. He's been working very hard to get people see trading in a particular way. And I encourage you to keep rereading his posts if you need to until you figure out what he's saying. There's got to be a good reason he has focused so much on this part of the equation, don't you agree?
Now if only he would make it easier by not expressing himself like a Russian hockey coach.
Regards,
chaos
The thread has been picking up lately, with some great discussions. I've been catching up this weekend - thanks everyone.
Jack & colina,
While I get the 1st part which in other words says that long rockets last longer in up IT (trends on the daily) and short rockets in down IT, I'm having trouble with the double bottoms/tops and H&S.
Double bottoms/tops - even harmonics in a channel (traverse from left to right) are dominant and result in staircase trends - does this mean that the even harmonics are horizontal? Does it apply to trends in the direction of the reversal only? And what type of trends - strong/intermediate/slow?
H&S - odd harmonics in a channel (traverse from right to left) are dominant - does this refer to lateral trends?
This stuff is very neat - can you explain it in more detail. A chart example would be great.
Thanks,
vorzo
Jack & colina,
While I get the 1st part which in other words says that long rockets last longer in up IT (trends on the daily) and short rockets in down IT, I'm having trouble with the double bottoms/tops and H&S.
Double bottoms/tops - even harmonics in a channel (traverse from left to right) are dominant and result in staircase trends - does this mean that the even harmonics are horizontal? Does it apply to trends in the direction of the reversal only? And what type of trends - strong/intermediate/slow?
H&S - odd harmonics in a channel (traverse from right to left) are dominant - does this refer to lateral trends?
This stuff is very neat - can you explain it in more detail. A chart example would be great.
Thanks,
vorzo
Very true and Very Kewl.
Jack has changed the way i think/ approach a lot of things. I played a couple games of chess today and was amazed by how much farther ahead in the game I could see as a result of my 'new' way of thinking.
- Status