Why learning to trade from Jack is so difficult

Quote from easyguru:

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.

While I have no evidence to dispute your claim of "Half dozen emails attacking [you] for questioning the method" The responses to you in the Journal itself certainly do not appear to be 'attacking' you in any way. One can locate my own response to you here. In addition to my response, the other responses to you (including one from an ET moderator) appear to be anything but an attack.

At any rate, I apologize for any emails you did receive 'attacking you' for your input. Providing input in the spirit of 'iterative refinement' is exactly what both Journals attempted to accomplish. Attack emails, especially sent to someone attempting to provide positive contributions, have no place in my Journals.

Good Trading to you.

- Spydertrader
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

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.

I did not compound the daily returns because of the obviously nonsensical result - growing your equity by ~ 20000x!! I assumed the trader ran at a constant equity.

Glad to hear you have a proportion of disbelief regarding these returns.
 
Quote from oddiduro:

This is why Jack is doing his job.

Korpela's First Corollary: If nobody barks at you, your message did not get through
..
Thus, lack of negative feedback indicates that few if any people really cared about your message.

funny, jack favorite analogy was The Hound of the Baskervilles
:cool:
 
Quote from bundlemaker:

I suggest another possiblity to the answer of this question. I don't suppose to be an expert at what I'm going to mention, but I can tell you I do have a great deal of knowledge and experience in the area in question.

Lingquistics.

What virtually no one realizes is that they don't know how they talk or even understand what they hear. The process of verbal communication is in fact a hypnotic process. Communication involves altered states.

Much research and study was done on this in the 1970's. What was found is that language comes in different sizes, ie. levels of precision. I noted elsewhere in another thread that a writer suggested it best to agree on defintions. This is impossible to do at a very deep accurate level.

Most communication is based on an assumed agreement of meaning and in that is lost about 99% of accurate, precise meaning.

Jack is rarely talking cryptically, if indeed he ever is. He is just speaking in a way that is totally unabiguous. Unfortunately, most of us never recognize it. Let me give you an example. Channels. Most of us refer to upper and lower channel lines. This becomes ambiguous unless we add more data to what we are describing (ie is it support or resistance to which we refer). Jack uses the terms "left" and "right". Many people blast him for being hard to understand and using non-standard terms.

The fact is using left and right is 100% unambiguous. Jack's level of precision is so far above most anyone else on Elite that the incongruency creates a great deal of frustration.

If you want to understand Jack just pay attention in a literal way and play along. You learn much much faster in a spirit of humor than in any other way.

Sorry to be dense, but could you more fully explain why left and right are more clear than upper and lower when referring to channel lines ?
 
there is quite a bit of difference, I think. The right trendline can be either an upper or lower if I have it straight.:confused:
The right trendline is always with the trend, right?:)

p.s. The right trendline is the one you would draw if you were drawing a single trendline.
 
Quote from ^^^^^^:

Sorry to be dense, but could you more fully explain why left and right are more clear than upper and lower when referring to channel lines ?

It's not about being dense, it's about not being familiar with the material.

The answer has to do with defining channels in a mechanical way. Jack teaches "finding points 1, 2 and 3" and from this two points define a trend line and the third point defines the opposiste side of the channel which is a parrallal. He also teaches "traverses" which is the trip price makes from one side of the channel to the other.

Now, if you are attempting to communicate with another trader about these traverses it gets very confusing if you're talking about "upper" and "lower" channel lines, especially if you haven't spelled out whether you're looking at an uptrend or downtrend.

If instead, a trader refers to "left" and "right", it's absolutely clear what is meant by a "right to left traverse", regardless of whether you're in an uptrend or downtrend.

When I first heard this I was baffled. I kept reading it over and over and it made no sense whatsoever. Then, I recalled the trick taught to every new algebra student, when you have a word problem draw a picture. I suggest you do likewise. It instantly becomes clear.

It may be non-standard languuage, but once you learn the concept it's easy to appreciate the elegance and simplicity it represents.
 
Trading is -
If it is going up - Buy, If going down Sell....What is there to learn from anyone?????
Buy if the price will rise. Sell if the price will drop. Take note that it is irrelevant what the price did recently, unless you have identified something in that information which will tell you what the price will do in the future.
Trend followers often believe that recent market action dictates the direction for the future. Others believe that the opposite of recent market action dictates the direction for the future. Both strategies can be wrong or right.

Ultimately what matters is the direction in the future. If you have a system that can give you this information, then you have a chance at success. You will still need to optimize this chance of success with money mangement practices to give yourself a better probability of avoiding an account blowout or stagnation.

-Raystonn
 
Quote from Raystonn:

Buy if the price will rise. Sell if the price will drop. Take note that it is irrelevant what the price did recently, unless you have identified something in that information which will tell you what the price will do in the future.
Trend followers often believe that recent market action dictates the direction for the future. Others believe that the opposite of recent market action dictates the direction for the future. Both strategies can be wrong or right.

Ultimately what matters is the direction in the future. If you have a system that can give you this information, then you have a chance at success. You will still need to optimize this chance of success with money mangement practices to give yourself a better probability of avoiding an account blowout or stagnation.

-Raystonn

7 The more important the situation is, the more probably you forget an essential thing that you remembered a moment ago

Finnish original: Mitä tärkeämmästä tilanteesta on kysymys, sitä todennäköisemmin unohdat olennaisen asian. jonka muistit hetki sitten.

Similarly to law 6, this illustrates one of the causes of failures in communication. It applies both to senders and recipients. The recipient tends to forget relevant things, such as items which have been emphatically presented in the message as necessary requirements for understanding the rest of it. And the sender, upon receiving a request for clarification, such as a question during a lecture, will certainly be able to formulate an adequate, easy to understand answer - afterwards, when the situation is over.
 
Back
Top