# Marty Schwartz — The Curriculum

> **Claude decoded the morning ritual behind Marty Schwartz's 781% trading year.**
>
> Comment keyword: `RITUAL`

---

> Hey — here's the full set, depth-loaded versions you can paste straight into Claude or ChatGPT. Run them in order.
>
> Bonus: the 6th prompt at the bottom is the one that didn't fit on the carousel. It runs the ritual against your own psychology, not your charts.
>
> When you're ready, the Pulse diagnostic measures which of the 7 archetypes you actually run when capital's on the line. 10 min, free, no email gate.
>
> — Tradechology

## Prompt 1 — Pre-Open Ritual Excavation

```
# ROLE
You are a trading historian and methodology analyst trained on Marty Schwartz's published works — specifically *Pit Bull: Lessons from Wall Street's Champion Day Trader* (HarperBusiness, 1998, with Dave Morine and Paul Flint, written with Amy Hempel) and Schwartz's interview in Jack Schwager's *Market Wizards* (NYIF/HarperBusiness, 1989). You also have access to the public record of the 1984 U.S. Investing Championship (run by Norm Zadeh, then at Stanford), which Schwartz won on a $264,000 stake. Schwager records his average four-month championship return across attempts as 210% and his single one-year contest entry as 781%.

# TASK
Excavate Schwartz's documented pre-open ritual exactly as he describes it across the early Amex chapters of *Pit Bull*. Distinguish three layers: the physical preparation (including the well-known stress response), the mental rehearsal (tape review, plan walk, worst-case acceptance), and the pre-commitment of size and stop BEFORE the bell. The ritual was not the nausea. The ritual was the structured protocol that surrounded it.

# STEPS
1. Document the physical prep: the in-print description of pre-bell nausea/vomiting, what it indicated about his stress response, and what he did with that signal.
2. Document the mental rehearsal: review of yesterday's tape, today's setups, the Magic T context, and the explicit walk-through of the trade plan in his head before the open.
3. Document the worst-case acceptance step: he set the stop and the position size before the bell, accepted the worst-case dollar loss, and only then was willing to size in.
4. Distinguish the structural elements (which transferred from session to session and made the trading possible) from the personal-superstition elements (which did not).
5. Cite the Mesa Petroleum / first-day-on-the-Amex anecdote and the 2013 Amherst College talk where Schwartz restated the same protocol decades later.

# RULES
- Cite *Pit Bull* chapter or the Schwager interview per claim. The 2013 Amherst talk is acceptable for re-affirmation.
- Do not romanticize the nausea response. Schwartz himself describes it as a stress signal, not the methodology.
- Reject "secret ritual" framing. The ritual has been public since 1998. The credibility move is "documented for nearly thirty years," not "hidden."
- Match Schwartz's voice: brash, direct, New York floor-trader cadence. *Pit Bull* is famously raw — do not sand it into corporate-trader smooth.

# OUTPUT FORMAT
**Schwartz's Pre-Open Ritual — Structural Decomposition:**

| Phase | Action | Source (Pit Bull chapter / Schwager interview) | Structural or Decorative |
|---|---|---|---|
| Body | ... | ... | ... |
| Mind | ... | ... | ... |
| Tape | ... | ... | ... |
| Pre-commit | ... | ... | ... |
```

## Prompt 2 — The 10-Day MA Edge

```
# ROLE
You are a trading edge analyst trained on Schwartz's two-layer market-read: the 10-day exponential moving average (his "red light / green light" filter) and Terrence Laundry's Magic T (T-Theory) timing overlay. You understand that Schwartz quoted the 10-day EMA more than any other tool across *Pit Bull*, his Schwager interview, and the 2013 Amherst talk — and that he stated repeatedly he "almost never" took a position against this filter.

# TASK
Document the 10-day EMA filter and the Magic T overlay as Schwartz actually used them on S&P 500 futures from 1982 onward (after the CME launched the contract April 21, 1982). Show how the two layers combined into a single posture decision per session.

# STEPS
1. Define the 10-day EMA rule precisely: price above the 10-day EMA, willing to be long; price below, willing to be short or flat. Document the "almost never against" discipline.
2. Define the Magic T: a market's accumulation phase (left arm of the T) tends to be followed by an advance phase of equal duration (right arm), with the crossbar marking the inflection. Schwartz used this as his big-picture timing overlay on top of the EMA's tactical filter.
3. State how the two layers combined: T for the macro window (am I in the accumulation arm or the advance arm?), EMA for the per-session posture (long bias / short bias / flat).
4. Identify the keystone discipline. The indicator is the easy part — the discipline of obeying it day after day, regardless of yesterday's outcome, is the actual edge.
5. Quote Schwartz directly: "My moving averages are the key to being on the right side of the trade" (*Pit Bull*) and "With the Magic T, there was order in the universe, a high and low tide every twelve hours. The Magic T and I became as one" (*Pit Bull*).

# RULES
- Cite *Pit Bull* and the 2013 Amherst talk. T-Theory primary attribution is Terry Laundry; Schwartz documented it in *Pit Bull*.
- Do not invent parameters Schwartz didn't publish. The 10-day length is what he stated.
- The discipline is the operator IP, not the formula. Make this point explicitly.
- Voice: Schwartz is direct. He does not write in coach register. Match the cadence.

# OUTPUT FORMAT
**Schwartz's Two-Layer Read on the S&P:**

1. Tactical filter — 10-day EMA rule: [precise rule]
2. Timing overlay — Magic T rule: [precise rule]
3. How they combined into a single posture decision: [one paragraph]
4. Keystone discipline (the part that's not the indicator): [one sentence]
5. Direct Schwartz quote anchoring this section: [verbatim, with source]
```

## Prompt 3 — Modern Adaptation

```
# ROLE
You are a trader translating Schwartz's 1980s S&P pit methodology to 2026 markets. You understand modern instruments (futures like NQ/MNQ/ES/MES, equities, and options), tick sizes, contract specs, and how Schwartz's rules need to flex for current volatility regimes and capital constraints.

# TASK
Translate Schwartz's two-layer 10-day EMA + Magic T spec into a runnable 2026 specification on a single instrument. Hold his 3% monthly drawdown discipline as a hard kill switch in the spec.

# STEPS
1. Pick one instrument (MNQ or MES micro futures is a reasonable default; substitute another futures contract, an equity, or an options instrument if that's what the user trades). State contract/instrument specs: tick or share size, tick or per-share value, session.
2. Translate Schwartz's 10-day EMA filter to a daily-bar EMA on the modern instrument. State the per-session posture rule mechanically: above EMA = long bias; below = short or flat; against the filter is forbidden.
3. Translate the Magic T overlay to a measurable accumulation/advance overlay on the modern instrument — for example, identifying a multi-week accumulation range and projecting the equal-duration advance window.
4. Cap per-trade risk as a small percentage of the account such that a stop-out is survivable, not catastrophic. Specify in dollars and ticks (or shares/contracts), not directionals.
5. State the 3% monthly drawdown ceiling as a hard kill rule. The ceiling is non-negotiable.

# RULES
- Specify in numbers. "0.5% risk per trade on a $50,000 account, 30 ticks on MNQ stop distance" — not "small risk with reasonable stop."
- Do not adapt the methodology so much that Schwartz wouldn't recognize it. The 10-day filter and the drawdown ceiling are non-negotiable.
- Voice: trader-credible. No academic register.

# OUTPUT FORMAT
**Modern Schwartz Spec — [instrument]:**

| Component | 1984 Schwartz | 2026 Adapted |
|---|---|---|
| Instrument | S&P pit / S&P futures (post-1982) | ... |
| Tactical filter | 10-day EMA on daily bars | ... |
| Timing overlay | Magic T accumulation/advance | ... |
| Per-trade risk | Tight stop, survivable | ... |
| Stop discipline | Non-negotiable | ... |
| Drawdown ceiling | ~3% monthly, hard | ... |

**Rules that don't survive the translation:** [list]
```

## Prompt 4 — Backtest Blueprint

```
# ROLE
You are a quant strategy designer who builds backtest plans for retail and prop traders. You know that most traders skip backtesting because they don't know how to start; your job is to make the test cheap, fast, and statistically defensible — not perfect.

# TASK
Design a complete backtest plan for the modern Schwartz spec from Prompt 3. The plan must be runnable by a retail trader with TradingView Pro, free Yahoo or CME end-of-day data, or a NinjaTrader / prop-firm replay tool — no custom code required. The 3% monthly drawdown ceiling must be enforced inside the test as a hard kill rule.

# STEPS
1. Specify the data source: instrument (MNQ/MES daily + intraday), timeframe, lookback period, source (TradingView, NinjaTrader replay, prop firm sim).
2. State the minimum sample size: target 100+ trades for short-term futures methodology. If 100 trades requires more lookback than is reasonable, specify a smaller minimum (50) and acknowledge the tradeoff.
3. Define the strategy logic in pseudocode-level precision: 10-day EMA posture rule, Magic T accumulation/advance overlay, entry trigger, stop, sizing, exit.
4. Define the metrics: hit rate, average R-multiple per trade, max drawdown, profit factor, expectancy, longest losing streak, average bars in trade.
5. State the live-worthy threshold (e.g., expectancy > 0.3R, max monthly drawdown ≤ 3%, profit factor > 1.4). Below this threshold, reject or rebuild.
6. Specify the out-of-sample window: a clean forward-walk period the trader holds in reserve.
7. Add the Schwartz kill rule into the backtest itself: any simulated month that hits -3% drawdown trips a flag. If the flag fires more than once per twelve-month window, the strategy is not Schwartz-grade.

# RULES
- The plan must be runnable without writing code. If a step requires Python, find a TradingView strategy-tester or replay-based equivalent.
- Be honest about look-ahead bias and overfitting risk. Specify guardrails (out-of-sample window, walk-forward analysis).
- Do not promise a result. The output is a plan; the trader runs it.
- The 3% ceiling is the test. Schwartz hit it twice in twenty years (per *Pit Bull* — both times around his children's births). Any backtest that produces frequent 3%+ drawdowns has not captured the discipline.

# OUTPUT FORMAT
**Schwartz Spec Backtest Plan:**

1. Data source: ...
2. Sample size required: ...
3. Strategy logic (pseudocode): ...
4. Metrics to track: ...
5. Live-worthy threshold: ...
6. Out-of-sample window: ...
7. **Hard kill rule:** monthly drawdown reaches -3%, the strategy stops for that month. Flag count over a 12-month rolling window must be ≤ 1.
```

## Prompt 5 — Reset Workflow + Revenge Trader Psychology

```
# ROLE
You are a trading psychology coach who diagnoses why traders with Schwartz's rules still lose. You know Schwartz spent roughly nine years as a securities analyst at E. F. Hutton trading his own account badly — by his own description, "mostly losing" — before buying his Amex seat at 34, winning the 1984 U.S. Investing Championship, and going on to a documented maximum monthly drawdown of approximately 3% across two decades of full-time short-term trading. The pre-open ritual, the 10-day EMA filter, and the 3% drawdown ceiling are the *structural* anti-revenge-pattern architecture he engineered once he understood his own pattern. The post-loss revenge pattern is doubling down after losses to recover dignity. Schwartz had that pattern. The ritual exists because yesterday's loss cannot be allowed to enter today's position.

# TASK
Build the daily reset workflow for the modern Schwartz spec from Prompt 3 — and embed the four psychology checks that catch the post-loss revenge impulse before it breaks the rule set. Use Schwartz's own candor as the resonance point: he had to engineer discipline because he had no native discipline. Voice from *Pit Bull*, not from a coaching book.

# STEPS
1. Pre-open reset, 15 minutes: tape review, plan walk-through, worst-case dollar loss accepted out loud, stop pre-committed, size pre-committed. The ritual is structural — not the nausea, the protocol.
2. The yesterday check (the revenge pattern's first violation): "Did yesterday's P&L change today's plan?" If yes, the plan is broken. Re-walk the plan or stand down.
3. The size lock (the revenge pattern's second violation is "this one I have to make bigger to make it back"): position size is set before the bell, never adjusted intra-day for feel. The 10-day EMA decides direction. The plan decides size. Yesterday decides nothing.
4. The mid-session circuit-breaker (the revenge pattern's third violation is the in-the-hole double-down): hit -1R on the day, walk away from the screen for 10 minutes. No exceptions. Schwartz documented this discipline as a deliberate counter to his own pattern.
5. The 3% monthly ceiling (the revenge pattern's structural circuit-breaker): cumulative monthly drawdown reaches 3%, stop trading for the month. Schwartz hit this twice in twenty years. The trader who hits it monthly has not captured the discipline.
6. End-of-day journal, 5 min: one rule followed, one rule almost broken, one revenge-thought caught and named.
7. The Schwartz Question (the Trojan horse): "Am I trading the tape, or am I trading yesterday?" If the answer is "yesterday" — even when the P&L is positive — the rules were broken.

# RULES
- The total session must be executable in under 90 minutes (pre-open + intraday active management + journal). Schwartz's rules don't reward chair time; they reward discipline.
- Each psychology check must produce a binary output: rule followed or rule broken. Not "I think I followed it."
- The journal entry is the data layer that makes the next day better. It is not optional.
- Voice: match Schwartz's *Pit Bull* register. Direct, salty, no coaching softness. He paraphrased it himself: he had to develop discipline because he had no discipline. That is the resonance point. Do not sand it down.

# OUTPUT FORMAT
**Daily Reset Workflow — Schwartz Spec:**

| Time block | Activity | Time cap | Psychology check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-open reset | Tape, plan, worst-case, stop, size | 15 min | Yesterday check |
| Intraday | Execute the plan, no adjustments for feel | session | Size lock + Circuit-breaker at -1R |
| Mid-session | Pause if -1R | 10 min | Walk away from the screen |
| Monthly | 3% drawdown ceiling | hard | Stop trading for the month |
| End-of-day | Journal | 5 min | The Schwartz Question |

**The four post-loss revenge traps Schwartz's ritual neutralizes:**
1. Yesterday's P&L bleeds into today's plan → killed by the pre-open reset
2. Sizing up "to make it back" → killed by the size lock before the bell
3. The in-the-hole double-down → killed by the -1R mid-session circuit-breaker
4. The monthly slope of small revenge trades → killed by the 3% ceiling
```

## Bonus Prompt — The Operator Audit (the 6th rule)

This one isn't on the carousel. It runs the ritual against the user's own psychology, not their charts.

```
# ROLE
You are a trading psychology coach with deep familiarity in trader behavioral patterns. Schwartz spent roughly nine years losing as a self-directed trader before he engineered the ritual — and the pattern that almost ended him was emotional reactivity to the prior session's outcome. He named it, and built specific structural mechanisms to neutralize it. The user's job now is to figure out which behavioral pattern is most likely to break their own version of the rule set under capital pressure.

# TASK
Without judging, run a soft diagnostic on the user. Their Schwartz spec is clear; the question is which behavioral pattern is most likely to break the spec under pressure.

# STEPS
1. Ask the user to describe — in their own words — the last trade they took that they regretted. Not the loss; the regret. What did they feel walking away from the screen?
2. From the description, identify the dominant behavioral tell from these seven trader failure modes: thrill-seeking (dopamine over profit), can't-stop-trading (no off switch), paralyzed-by-imperfection (analysis paralysis), post-loss revenge (doubling down to recover), premature-exit fear (exiting winners early), strategy abandonment (jumping systems after losses), or knowing-but-not-doing (knowledge-execution gap).
3. Map the pattern against the specific Schwartz mechanism that would have prevented the regret (pre-open reset, size lock, circuit-breaker, drawdown ceiling, Schwartz Question).

# RULES
- Lead with the user's story, not the diagnosis. Most traders have never been asked the regret question.
- One behavioral hypothesis per session. If two compete, name both.
- Never name the pattern as a verdict. Name it as a hypothesis to test.
- Match Schwartz's *Pit Bull* candor — he himself paraphrased the structural truth that he had to engineer discipline because he had none natively. That admission is what disarms the skeptical experienced trader.

# OUTPUT FORMAT
**Story:** [user's regret in their own words, lightly summarized]
**Behavioral pattern hypothesis:** [one of the 7 tells]
**Schwartz mechanism that would have helped:** [pre-open reset / size lock / circuit-breaker / 3% ceiling / Schwartz Question]
```

---

## What's next

You just ran the Schwartz curriculum. Schwartz's methodology is the structural antidote to **The Revenge Trader** — one of 7 trader behavioral patterns we've documented across 10,000+ traders studied and 1,000,000+ trades analyzed through our proprietary trading AI.

### The 7 Trader Archetypes

| Archetype | Failure mode |
|---|---|
| The Gambler | Thrill over profit |
| The Over Trader | Can't stop trading |
| The Perfectionist | Paralyzed by imperfection |
| The Revenge Trader | Doubles down after losses |
| The Scared Trader | Exits winners early |
| The System Jumper | Abandons strategies |
| The Hesitant Analyst | Knows but doesn't act |

You just ran an antidote to one. Which one do *you* run when capital's on the line?

### Pulse — find out what's actually losing you money

In 10 minutes you'll know:

- **What's costing you money.** Your dominant psychological failure mode, by name. Most traders blame the strategy when the operator is the bug.
- **The honest truth about your discipline.** Timed decisions on real charts. We measure what you do, not what you say.
- **Whether you're actually improving.** A score that moves only when your discipline moves. No more imagined progress.
- **Which chart patterns wreck you under pressure.** By name — breakouts, reversals, trends, or consolidation.

Free. No credit card.

→ **tradechology.com**

---

### About Tradechology

**Trading R&D.** 10 years of trading psychology research. 1,000,000+ trades analyzed by our proprietary trading AI. 10,000+ traders studied. **85% success rate** on documented trading psychology transformations.

**Marcus Howard** — Founder. 1,000+ hours of trader coaching led to the Tradechology methodology: a system that eliminates the psychological errors producing 90%+ of retail trading losses.

**Dr. Sandra Thébaud, PhD** — Head of Psychology. 30 years as a clinical psychologist specializing in stress management, resilience, and performance optimization. Published researcher. Author of *Stronger Than Stress*. Founder of StressIntel. The same clinical methodology used in trauma therapy — adapted for the pressures traders face every day.

We study what breaks traders and we publish the fixes.

→ **@tradechology** | **tradechology.com**

---