Why learning to trade from Jack is so difficult

Quote from ktmexc20:

Btw Td, When he refers to "account equity" are you assuming he's referring to conventional definition. This is possible... then again it could be in a different context. This is an example where comprehending jack's words can get fuzzy. Familiarity with the theory of logic; the meaning of language representation (any language), and good mental imagery is essential for the underlying message, imo. Someone who has studied computer language theory, would also probably understand what I'm referring to.
More...
If there is any doubt about his definition of account equity, then let us just focus on his claim to consistently make 3 times the daily range in ES. Remember, this must be based on a per contract basis, otherwise the claim is meaningless.

As for the "the meaning of language representation" and "fuzzy" comprehension, let us not forget one thing. Aside from art and entertainment, when someone speaks in a manner that can be interpreted in a number of different ways, then he is disingenuous. He is creating a back door should he need it. I avoid people of that reptilian ilk at all costs in real life.
 
Quote from oddiduro:

This is one corrolary that specifically applies to traders.

2 If a message can be interpreted in several ways, it will be interpreted in a manner that maximizes the damage

This Murphyistic remark is a warning about the very real possibility that ambiguities will be resolved in just the way you did not mean. Notice that this does not mean the worst misunderstanding you can imagine; rather, something worse - an interpretation you could not have imagined when you formulated your message.
More...

Who is Jack? Is he one of the Market Wizards... Which Trading Course does he teach? What are his qualifications ( Are you talking about Seykota).

Moreover, I don't know what is there to learn from anyone.

Trading is -
If it is going up - Buy, If going down Sell....What is there to learn from anyone?????
 
Quote from bundlemaker:

...He is just speaking in a way that is totally unabiguous. Unfortunately, most of us never recognize it.
More...
Take a moment. Do you see the irony of your statement?
 
This is why Jack is doing his job.

Korpela's First Corollary: If nobody barks at you, your message did not get through

Lack of negative feedback is often presented as indicating that communication was successful. Au contraire, it really means you failed miserably.

Since communication always fails, anyone who does understand part of your message will miss the other parts. If he is motivated enough, and understood well enough the part he understood, he'll write back to you. Whether he barks at you or politely asks for clarification is up to his education and character; for you, there should be little difference.

Human communication works through dialogues. If something that looks like one-directional communication, such as a book or a Web page or a newspaper article, miraculously works, it's because the author participated in dialogues elsewhere. He had discussed the topic with numerous people before he wrote the "one-directional" message.

So feedback is not just getting some nice comments "keep up the good work". Rather, feedback as a genuinely interactive process is a necessary part of human communication. Feedback has emotional effects, too; just getting any feedback is usually nice; but the content matters too.

By statistical certainty, if you get sufficient feedback, there will be negative feedback too. Even if your message is perfect, some people will tell you it's crap. In fact, especially if it is perfect, some people will say - often with harsh words - it's no good, because there are clueless people who envy you.

Thus, lack of negative feedback indicates that few if any people really cared about your message.
 
If your objective is to teach, communication is easy. If your objective is to form a cult, the more obscure the communication, more is the need of followers to follow the guru to correctly interpret it.

Look at all cult behaviors. The language always is obscure. That is the way to build followers.

Look at the behaviors of followers. I had once the misfortune of posting a suggestion on Spydertrader's journal about his method, within half an hour I had more than half a dozen emails attacking me for questioning the method.

Now my suggestion had no word of attack, just offering an alternative method of selecting stocks. But the followers were in full force denouncing it before even listening to what it is. No one had an open mind to listen to it. So I did not follow it up.

That is typical example of cult followers. Deny alternative reality. The best solution is to let the cult followers alone.
 
Quote from kevinmr:

Thunderdog -

Did you really mean 4% - 7% daily on his account equity? Seems improbable as that will translate to > 1000% annual returns. If you have $100 in account equity and make $4 per day (4%) * ~250 trading days == $1000 per year!
More...
Yes, those performance claims are my understanding. However, don't take my word for it.

Regarding the 4% to 7% a day compounded:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1031210#post1031210

There, you will find the following sentence:

"the market potential for a front running trader orientation to trading the highest quality stocks (based upon earnings and price performance) runs, on a daily basis 4 to 7 % a day consistently."


Regarding his regularly making 3 times the daily range in ES:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=912447&highlight=grob+3x#post912447

There, you will find the following sentence:

"And I do reach my goal of 3x H-L in ES as a practice."

It's all there. Take a few moments to look for it.

As for your reference to making 1,000% annual returns on daily earnings of 4% on equity, your calculations are rather understated. Anyone making 4% a day will eventually increase the size of their trades to reflect the burgeoning growth of their account. Your calculation takes no compounding into consideration. His alleged results suggest much higher annual returns. And since Jack allegedly trades across many different markets, there should be sufficient liquidity to accommodate a fair amount of such compounding.

Naturally, I believe none of it.
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

Take a moment. Do you see the irony of your statement?
More...

Irony, perhaps paradox is even a better word. Whether or not Jacks style keeps the masses happy or not is not something I care about. Nor is my job to defend Jack. I posted what I did for those interested in understanding what's really going on.

I've been incredibly fortunate to have some wonderful teachers. Most of these teachers are considered by the masses as weirdo's or whatever. One of these teachers made a statement long ago that I'll never forget... "if you mover 1/2 an inch to the right the entire universe changes".

I'm not interested in arguing with anyone, and each is entitled to their opinion, so I won't reply to posts that merely wish to dismiss my opinion or Jacks way of communicating. I'd be delighted to share my opinion ( and that's all it is unless I refer to some specific research or clinical study) to those honestly interested in understanding what's really going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top