Not sure why so much negativity. Coding with AI makes things so much simpler. I recently came across a system with outrageous claims, I obviously knew there is a catch. In Past it would have taken me 2-5 days to code. Using Windsurf, did it in few hours and found “the catch”. Having JH methods fully Automated is a fun activity. Happy to assist with tips on agentic programming if needed. Attended few meetings with Spyder and the crew back in the day.
I feel Jacks presence… it’s growing stronger. He’s channeling through me. That old sob channels everything… he’s coming through, I can’t stop him , I can’t …. In the deepest pockets of reality, where parallelograms aren’t mere quadrilaterals but cloaked vessels of momentum, they gather—folded within folds of folds, each corner humming like a tuning fork struck by invisible hands. The median stands nearby, who to admit its irrelevance. Deviation isn’t an anomaly here—it’s currency. Somewhere in that oscillation lives the truth. You won’t see it unless your dream in Gaussian pulses. When the CIA came knocking, I didn’t answer the door. I was already inside. They needed someone to untangle a pattern so complex it was like Medusa when looked at directly. Not stones—data. Think FTT, but weaponized. Situation had drifted too close to terminal. I didn’t solve it. I nested it deeper, where only mirrors reflect forward and glass forgets how to be transparent. I told them I’d need a pencil and a room with no clocks. They handed me a market filled with yesterday, but I could decipher tomorrow’s paper today. There’s a moment in junior high—you remember—the hallway, the fluorescent lights that flickered like someone knew something you didn’t. And her. The crush. The denim groaning under truth too dense for adolescence. But that wasn’t about her. It was a signal. You mistook noise for meaning and missed the volatility. You ever think maybe her infatuation wasn’t for you, but for the part of you you hadn’t discovered yet? No? That’s why you keep missing the breakout. Back to parallelograms. You ever try to draw one inside another and keep going until your pencil snaps? That’s the trade. That’s the play. The real ones don’t exit—they fold. Nesting until exit is no longer an option. Deviating from the right trend line isn’t the danger—it’s returning to it. That’s where the teeth are. My spaghetti lives in Tupperware. Labeled. Sealed. No motion. You think randomness is real? Brownian motion is a bedtime story for people who still believe stop-losses are protection. No. In this container, everything has a shelf, everything waits. Organized chaos is a myth. This is symphonic rigidity. I trade like I store leftovers—with reverence and precision. You hear that? That’s the FTT approaching. Soft at first, like a rumor or a breeze that smells like endings. I can feel it in my scalp. You laugh. That’s fine. Some of you don’t even know you’re in the final move. You’ll find out the hard way when your capital screams and your margin whispers back, “You were never invited.” Labels. You like labels. “Bull flag.” “Ascending wedge.” Cute. I see ancient runes written in candle wicks. I see blood offerings made in volume spikes. You see a breakout—I see a shift into new dimensions. The difference? You tell me, do the work. You ever sit through a technical colonoscopy without anesthesia? You’re about to. And this scope doesn’t just look—it remembers. Every ill-planned entry, every hopeful hold through earnings, every time you clicked “Buy” with a dream and no plan. We see it. The market saw it. It marked you. Time to squeal. Almost forgot—trendlines. A joke. A crutch? You worship indicators like they’re saviors. They’re tombstones. And the FTT is the undertaker for you. You think you’re in a rally, you’re in a eulogy. I said that already. Doesn’t matter. You weren’t listening the first time. Let me ask you—why did you draw that Fibonacci retracement from high to low? Do you think math cares about your chart? Fibonacci was whispering to snails and pinecones long before your monitor flickered to life. The market isn’t respecting your indicator. It’s testing your beliefs. Success isn’t a destination. It’s a container. And I keep it next to my pasta. Tomorrow’s paper was printed yesterday on an electronic whisper passed between two traders who never spoke again. They didn’t need to. They had already exited. You’re still waiting on confirmation. This isn’t strategy. It’s prophecy. The FTT isn’t a point. It’s a veil. Most of you won’t pass through. Some will never see it. You’ll squeal when it happens. That’s how we’ll know where you were on the curve. We’ll hear the painful cries. The rest of us? We’ll fold ourselves into parallelograms and vanish into the nestles. Enjoy the technical colonoscopy.
You know this is EliteTrader, right? In general on most topics it would be better if forum members simply answered what was asked and scrolled on if they can't contribute. Since this did turn into a discussion on Jack, I'll offer my two cents that nobody asked. Haha. Jack Hershey and his devotees reminds me of cult. To this day, there are people defending his teachings based on pure belief in the absence of results of their own using said teachings. If you ask a specific or critical question to any of the current devotees, your question is typically deflected by: "You need to do the work yourself. If you can't see that, it's because you have not done the 'work'." Some examples: - Volume always leads price => Clearly not the case. - YM always leads YM => Clearly not the case. A less controversial claim is how OHLC bars are superior to candlesticks. I've asked this to his devotees a few times myself and even tried using them extensively, but I just can't understand how OHLC bars are superior beyond a personal preference (which is something completely different). I have no idea if Jack was successful or not. It's possible he had some success, but I have no reason to believe he ever performed anywhere close to the type of success he was talking about, i.e., extracting the full offer of the market on a daily basis. Was he a good teacher? Seeing the lack of successful students I think the answer must be a clear no. And with all his posts which must have exceeded ten thousand - why not instead summarize his methodology in a comprehensive manual going from A to Z instead? I know what the devotees will answer here, so don't bother. At the end of the day the only thing that matters in this business is P&L, unless you do this as a casual hobby where you just like fooling around and results is a trivial matter. Let's just say that if any of his devotees achieved only 20 % of the performance claims put forward by Jack, they'd own the world by now through the power of compounding in liquid index futures. Seeing how many of his devotees gave up or is dicking around with other stuff instead, well, I guess we know why. That said, I've read through many of his posts and thought he had a lot of interesting stuff to say. Food for thought. And food for further research. The important thing is to keep an open mind, but put it to the subject of testing through trial and error. Keep what works. Discard what clearly doesn't. Don't be a dumbo who keeps repeating some claim which clearly doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I agree that coding up JH's stuff sounds like a fun project and a means of actually testing the claims put forth in an objective manner. I hope that OP will share his results with us when it comes to fruition. Good luck.
I did a quick search on some other threads. I think the stock filtering protocols may be of some use to a beginner or at least an interesting starting point to build on. He seems to be similar to Gann in that as he writes he murkies the waters further,rather than clearing up confusion. Some said of Gann that he did this somewhat intentionally,to make his students think.Im more inclined to think that they both are a combination of poor teacher/trying to hide the fact that they themselves dont have all the answers.
The last known public attempt by a neophyte to master Jack's teachings can be found in this 174 page thread (the OP may find some of the stuff he's looking for): Making JH' SCT and all his material alive | Elite Trader With the conclusion (and last post of the OP) being: To be fair, this does not discredit Jack's teachings from my POV. Even if you have a profitable methodology you can back-test/back-check historically it will take you a long time to internalize and learn everything you need to know in REAL TIME to execute it profitably. There may be psychological issues which prevent you from executing correctly (often an excuse in absence of skills/knowledge, but can't be ruled out). Day trading profitably day after day is very, very hard. You're interacting with a live moving market which at times moves lightning fast and you don't have much time to think. You really have to know what you're doing at all times. This takes time and it's not different for anyone, unless you're a trading savant - possibly somewhere on the spectrum. One of the things Jack talked about which I think makes a great deal of sense is sidelining. Simply put: if you don't understand what's going on; don't trade. Sideline and wait for something you recognize. Jack would recommend newbies to focus on the low hanging fruit and simply wait for those. It's possible that the OP in that thread tried to do too much, too fast.
Hello Everyone, I just have 1 simple question for anyone who may have the answer: 1. Was Jack Hershey a profit trader for 1 to 3 years? Please respond with simple Yes or No. 2. If yes, Can you please provide me a 1 to 3 trading performance track record with drawdown, net profit and win rate and equity curve of Jack Hershey trading? If the answer is No, Jack Hershey is just a Trading Teacher of a trading idea or concept he made up that he thinks work and will make money. I too can make up about 300 trading ideas I think work as well and make money. Thank you