Quote from Thunderdog:
It is not practical and it wouldn't work. As you may be aware, Hershey trainees need to devote months of effort and study to learn the method and use it properly. First, it would be a waste of time for someone to expend that kind of effort on something that he either does not believe will work or does not believe it is better than what he is doing already. Second, if anyone claims he used Jack's method and showed either real or simulated poor results, then his defenders would simply conclude that the detractor either did not properly study and use the method or that he sabotaged the effort. If you have ever read any of Jack's posts, then you would know just how slippery he is. Therefore, the litmus test remains the bona fide favorable results of someone who claims to have used the method to make the kinds of returns that Jack boasts about. Anything else would be futile because it would be controvertible.
The only problems I've notice about Jack was his intrusion on other threads.
In fact, many at ET have said its that "reason alone" why they don't like Jack even though they continue attacking his trade methodology.
As for the length of time to learn a method...I think its not important.
I know several profitable traders (institutional traders, pro traders, prop traders and retail traders) that took them months to understand and learn a method (not Jacks method) to the point where they felt comfortable enough to apply it.
My best friend whom is a very succesful instituitonal trader took him about
one year to fully understand what he was doing.
He still attends voluntary training sessions at his job a few times per year for the past five years.
However, I do agree with you in that it is a waste of time to learn something in that you don't believe works.
Fortunately, belief and proof are two different things.
I've seen many Jack stalkers state for fact here at ET that his method does not work.
However, they have not tested it nor traded (simulator or real money) the methodology.
My point, how can someone state as if it is FACT that something doesn't work if they don't want to spend the time and energy to learn it, test it and report actual facts about the methodology???
Why bother with all the bashing via FACTS that have no merits until someone can post verifiable proof via a P/L statement even for one trading day that it does not work.
Thus, the litmus test works both ways.
Those that state for FACT that it does not work...
They should provide verifiable brokerage statements of at least one trading day to support those FACTS.
Until that happens, its just a BELIEF mingled in with other bias opinions.
Just the same as you noted, those that say it works should do the same.
As I said in another thread...neither one in both camps are able to do such and I suspect neither gives a hoot about posting any verifiable info to support their
beliefs so that they merit being called
facts.
Therefore, its just as much of a waste of time and energy with all the
constant bashing and new threads about Jack (some members are nearing +100 bashing posts about Jack) when they could have used that same time and energy to learn the method so they can give FACTUAL info.
In fact, there are at least 5 members have has been doing such for
many months.
Thus, do you see the irony here about wasting time and energy to learn the method???
Just my opinion as usual.
Mark