Thank you sdo much for taking the trouble to converse about the topic of the thread.
I stepped off topic as you point out. My reasoning was that it might have been a way to consider the import of rules and their affect. It wasn't I guess.
To learn to trade is a real undertaking. I think we can agree that the IT thread was a followup on a year's prior work to go through the stages of forming a core and everyso often adding shells to that core. In neuro plasticity the goal was to establish several coarsely differentiated regions that had an overall coarse set of locations that could be used like the letters of an alphabet in a dictionary or a chromatic scale of several octaves.
There were no rules promulgated in Iterative Refinement (IR) nor was there and association made for the rules that were not there.
Here the OP is concerned about "sticking" and sticking to" You are also expressing this concern.
The collective regions of the mind that are used for reading, singing or any other differentiated endeavor do involve both hemispheres of the phyical brain as shown on graphics of scans.
As is well known I do stay up to date on the IR thread and do not participate much because it increases the moderation traffic load quite a bit.
All of the five years were spent dealing with how a person goes through a process to become an expert trader. Namely: lay a foundation and then use the same topics (sectors of a circle) to go in a helix higher and higher, assembling building blocks, and applying them to the foundation. This is a picture of the five years effort that was made.
The foundation was and algorithm and a routine called MADA and it is in contrast to the "rules" oriented algorithm called OODA that is commonly used by rules oriented traders. It is incumbant of those who study markets and trade in markets to know both paths since they deal with the two parts of Information Theory (IT). I chose the non-probabilistic side (MADA) and you chose the probabilistic side (OODA).
I stepped off topic as you point out. My reasoning was that it might have been a way to consider the import of rules and their affect. It wasn't I guess.
To learn to trade is a real undertaking. I think we can agree that the IT thread was a followup on a year's prior work to go through the stages of forming a core and everyso often adding shells to that core. In neuro plasticity the goal was to establish several coarsely differentiated regions that had an overall coarse set of locations that could be used like the letters of an alphabet in a dictionary or a chromatic scale of several octaves.
There were no rules promulgated in Iterative Refinement (IR) nor was there and association made for the rules that were not there.
Here the OP is concerned about "sticking" and sticking to" You are also expressing this concern.
The collective regions of the mind that are used for reading, singing or any other differentiated endeavor do involve both hemispheres of the phyical brain as shown on graphics of scans.
As is well known I do stay up to date on the IR thread and do not participate much because it increases the moderation traffic load quite a bit.
All of the five years were spent dealing with how a person goes through a process to become an expert trader. Namely: lay a foundation and then use the same topics (sectors of a circle) to go in a helix higher and higher, assembling building blocks, and applying them to the foundation. This is a picture of the five years effort that was made.
The foundation was and algorithm and a routine called MADA and it is in contrast to the "rules" oriented algorithm called OODA that is commonly used by rules oriented traders. It is incumbant of those who study markets and trade in markets to know both paths since they deal with the two parts of Information Theory (IT). I chose the non-probabilistic side (MADA) and you chose the probabilistic side (OODA).
Quote from teasinggtara:
1)My background is as a creative choreographer. Creativity and rules are left and right brain activities that hamper each other. This confuses you and that's why you can't show any results. You think you are freeing traders minds but instead you imprison them. You should try reading the posts in IR to see how even basic level rules without demonstrations stall a traders progress. 2000+ IR pages and nothing to show speaks for itself.
You feel I am confused and point out I have shown no results. A lot of people hold your view. Usually the ratio is 4 out of 5 where this majority agree with you.
You are seeing rules in IR. I believe that, instead, a process is being advocated to build differentiation in the mind. There is a theme and WMCN is a good clue as to what is being used to let a person know he knows what is going on at any given time.
2)âThis is the definition of effectiveness and efficiencyâ. Nonsense! Jack the definition of efficiency is âthe ratio of the output to the input of any systemâ.
the system is the partnership of the trader and the market. The input is the market's offer; the output is the trader's PnL. Use your ratio and see that as skills and knowledge are transferred to the trader, there is a statistically significant change over time. For, me this improvement is the effectivenss and efficiency of the partnership. As you say for you this doesn't show. How could it show for you. It does, however show for the traders. they have the information to make the ratio and see the ratio change over time.
SCT only shows a theoretical output and the burden of proof is always on the claimant.
This is always the case. I believe the 4 out of 5 ratio of people who agree with you is a direct consequence of the fact that the burden of proff is always on the claimant. In this case there are proxies for me and they are doing the proof for their benefit. Anyone can choose to be a proxy. Some do some don't. Spydertrader is an example of a person who did and who stated his process in financial terms over more than this recent five year period. He had the use of a private jet occassionally in his prior employment. I had the use of private jets and twins throughout most of my career as well. I'm sure you do too.
You claim to have some scientific background or knowledge but Jack, you continually present a theory with staggeringly limited results as something exceptional. Any scientist would never present a theory as proof of anything.
The neuro plasticity results are something else. I do believe that those who observe those who have made the trip to become differentiated, have a unique life experience. An observer sees it happen and sees something in trading (based on an algorithm deduced from theory) he has never observed in his lifetime. Maybe your ex has related such experiences to you about someone who is differentiated and knows intimately how the market works.
Luckily there is a parallel scientific basis for the pragmatic results of growth in differentiation from the theories of how neuro plasticity works (a third theory, if you will).
People spend 100's of thousands of dollars as a consequence of having the above life experience. Their phone numbers were posted as you know.
3)Jack, you've never traded size, and it shows
Those who have observed me or my records or cited me for what they presumed were violations would disagree with you
4)Name some practitioners. You certainly are not one of them. Tell me their names and I'll filter my way towards them. Perhaps you are right and I am wrong and I'll willingly admit to that as soon as I see the results from one of these SC Theory practitioners.
Occasionally a person asks me to support his due dilligence for that persons reasons. He usually suggests why he is doing due dilligence. Your reason is phishing for information to do any of several processes that people do in the financial industry. I provided that information above.
This is a discussion about how to stick to rules. My question was, are bad rules the cause of poor discipline? Is it a mindgame?
Yes and the search topic is the Lizard Syndrome which is theory based. Obviously many people who posted in this thread are experiencing its precoursors called incoherence (fight or flight syndrome), oxygen deprivation (The Bohr Effect) and about 10 stress syndromes that I will list later by scanning a compilation. Rules trading ends in a person becoming gravely imbalanced.
I am using your SC Theory as an example of how rules can stifle a trader because what you believe will result in success, might be nothing more than a theory that is the cause of your failure.
Thanks for proving my point
