TRADER DOSSIER: Papa G / "The 10-Minute Trader"

Not financial advice. This reconstructs what one public trader says he does, from his own on-air words. He runs paid offerings that reward looking successful, and no figure is audited. Verify everything before risking capital.

📑 Contents

Confidence tags: 🟢 = him, solo, on his own stream (nearly everything, he has no panel format) · 🔴 = unverified claim.

🎯 The Strategy in Plain English

Papa G runs the simplest system of the three in this project: buy-write covered calls on blue-chip dividend stocks, every Monday, every week. He screens for companies with 20+ years of consecutive dividend increases (Dividend Aristocrats and Kings territory), buys 100-share lots at Monday's open, and immediately sells that Friday's call, usually at or just above his purchase price, collecting at least 1% of the position per week. If the stock gets called away Friday, that's a win; restart Monday. If not, sell another call next Monday. "Round and round you go, it's kind of like Monopoly."

His entire risk philosophy fits in one rule: never sell the stock at a loss. A falling position is treated like a rental property, "do you sell the house at a loss, or do you let the people renting it stay there and continue to pay you rent? Stop looking at the prices." He keeps writing weekly calls all the way down, pushing strikes further out of the money (and, in practice, below his own cost basis) to keep the rent coming.

He refuses complexity on principle: no Greeks, no spreads, no monthlies, no charts beyond a five-point eyeball scan. That makes the system genuinely executable by a beginner, and it also means the system has no real defense except patience. The Evidence section shows both sides: a live book full of positions down 20–34% still "hitting 1% a week," and one $15,000 realized loss where the method's blind spot cashed itself in.

⚡ THE TRADING PLAN

The plan at a glance: master table

P1. Instrument & market

100-share lots of large, boring, weekly-optionable dividend payers, household names (Cisco, McDonald's, GM, IBM, Aflac, Walmart, AIG, Macy's, Kohl's…). The weekly option chain is a hard requirement (P2), which quietly biases the universe toward more liquid/volatile names than "boring dividend stock" suggests (see Audit).

SELECTP2. Selection: which stocks qualify

The screen, in his order:

1. Dividend-streak membership 🟢, the objective core: "Nothing but pre-qualified dividend stocks. Any company that has 20 years or more of increased dividends. The Dividend Kings, 50 years. The Dividend Aristocrats." Elsewhere: "Dividend kings, dividend aristocrats, dividend champions, dividend contenders, anything on Warren Buffett's list." These are standard, independently maintained lists, a checkable bar, not a vibe.
2. Rising-dividend proxy for profitability 🟢: "If the dividends are consistently increasing, that means they're consistently profitable. If the dividends are going down, they're losing money. It's actually that simple." (He explicitly does not read filings: "I don't read the quarterly reports… don't pay attention to the earnings.")
3. Weekly options must exist 🟢: "They're consistently profitable and they have weekly options. That's the only two criteria."
4. Yield sanity floor 🟢, the real reason he skips expensive stocks: a $438 stock paying $2/quarter (0.46%) got "What the hell are you thinking?… A $400 stock should have a $4 dividend every 90 days." ≈1%/quarter expectation. The "I don't do stocks over $400" line is a fast pre-filter for this, not a price rule per se.
5. The 2–4 second chart scan 🟢, five things on a 1-year chart: "High. Low. Where was it a year ago. Where is it now. What is the motion, where's the money flowing?" Wants it bouncing off the bottom, not still falling ("you cannot get any lower than the low of the year"), not at the high ("I've never heard anybody say Dell is at the high of the year, let's buy it"). A 30-day version of the same scan is used interchangeably; entry timing refinement: two days up off the bottom, jump in on day three.
6. The gut gate 🟢, asked every single time: "Do I like ADM? Do I want to hold it for a long period of time? Because you just might have to." ("Long term for me is 30 days. I'm already retired.")

Why active weekly income at all 🟢: "Why dividend stocks over bonds? I haven't seen a single bond that offers over 40%." On SCHD/JEPQ: "The returns aren't as great as 1% a week… what is SCHD offering, 3-point-something? Nothing wrong with that if that's what you're looking for."

ENTERP3. Entry: Monday at the open, buy-write, calculator out

• Why Monday, precisely 🟢, the theta-decay argument: "A weekly option: Monday morning is the highest value. If I sell an option on a Monday I've got 5 days, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%. That's 100% of the time value, Monday morning to Friday afternoon. Miss Monday and I just lost 20% of the possible income."
• Execution 🟢: "Tomorrow morning, as soon as the market opens, regardless of what it opens at, I buy the stock at the opening of the day" → then immediately sell the call: "I want to get in, I want to be done, over with, and go about my day." (Working years: orders prepped the night before; retired: set up just before the open.)
• The instant-profit frame 🟢: "With a covered call you get your profit immediately… I buy it at $29.60, sell [the call] at $29.50, and I'm only making 80 cents per share, I know what my profit's going to be before I even do it." The premium is treated as banked at fill (see P5).
• The math ritual, every pick 🟢: profit ÷ cost of trade including commissions and fees. Worked on-air: $180 premium ÷ $47.90 stock = 3.7% for the week; $381 ÷ $20,000 = 1.9%; $79 ÷ $2,421 = 3.2%. Quick mental shortcut he teaches: move the decimal, 1% of a $15.71 stock is ~16¢, so a 25¢ premium clears the bar.
• Strike when healthy: at or a hair above the purchase price (buy at 23.45, sell the 23.50), so the whole 1% is premium and any pop to the strike is bonus.

PORTFOLIOP4. Position sizing & capital

• ~98% invested at all times 🟢: "1% on my positions is 1% on my account, because 98% of my money is invested at all times."
• Deploy until dry 🟢: "On an average week I'd say five to 10 [names] fit. I don't look at every single one that fits, I look at them until I run out of money." Observed book: six positions at once.
• Averaging down is share-for-share 🟢: "In order to dollar-cost average down properly you buy the exact same amount. 800 shares at $109, stock at $93 → buy 800 more, average ~$99. If I bought only 400, it only brings me to ~$105."
• The one cap 🟢: "I set a dollar amount, I don't want to put more than $50,000 into anything that's going the wrong direction. I stop at 50,000." (Ambiguity and contradictions with his actual book, HTZ ~$87k, IONQ ~$94k at cost, are flagged in the Audit.)
• Small accounts: same math, honestly framed, "1% of 400 bucks is only $4… it's a slow growth. You're not going to make $100 a week, kiddo, that's 25%."

P5. Managing the week: there is no managing the week

His single most distinctive rule: nothing happens between Monday and Friday.

🟢 "The only thing I really care about is the time decay from Monday to Friday. If on Friday the option is worthless or has value, we won't know that until Friday afternoon, and Friday afternoon is when we look at the numbers to see what we do next, because I can't figure out what we're going to do on Friday until Friday gets here."

• No profit-locking: even if the call collapses to a penny on Tuesday, he does not buy it back and redeploy. "Stock stays the same, I make my money. Stock goes down, I still make my money, because that's already locked in." (Direct contrast with TJ's PPD logic, flagged in the Audit as an efficiency gap.)
• No defensive close either, asked point-blank whether to buy back the call and sell the stock at break-even on a Thursday drop: "No." (Rules 1 and 2.)
• Early assignment is the counterparty's choice and a bonus: "They can do it anytime they want, but you made money. Good for you." (Technical note he teaches: options expire Saturday, but 3:59 PM Friday is your last action.)
• Friday decision tree: called away → back to cash, rescan Monday. Not called → keep shares, sell next week's call Monday. Optionally roll forward (buy back this week's, sell next week's), but "sometimes you have to pay to roll it forward, or you get a very small percentage, it's always going to be a numbers game." Worked roll: buy back at $0.41, sell next week's $0.70 → net ~$0.30 ≈ 2% on a $15.50 stock. (Mechanically a calendar spread, he notes.)

DEFENDP6. Defending a falling position

The stock drops; he keeps the rent coming by walking the strike out:

🟢 "At the money it's $1.02, over 4%. One strike out is 75¢, 3%. Three strikes out is 54¢, 2%. Five strikes out is 29¢, still 1%." And on a $30 stock: "Three strikes out I'm still picking up half a percent. Half a percent every single week is still 26% per year. Not my goal, but still."

• Working floor ≈ 0.5%/week before a trade stops being worth it.
• In practice this means strikes below his cost basis, on his live book he says it plainly: "I sold the 13 calls, which is less than what I paid for it" (paid $15.67). See Evidence for the full table and why this is the strategy's real fault line.
• The 1% is measured against original cost, not current price 🟢: Harley at $23.62, bought at $35.62, "the 24s are selling for 35 cents… that, my friends, is 1% of my purchase price." The target reads as "met" while the position sits −34%.
• His stated escape is the roll: "Do I want to sell at 24? No. I just want to collect that premium, and if it gets close, I'll push it out until next week."
• And the lesson he articulates but doesn't consistently follow (see Evidence, Target): "When you sell a premium on a stock that is down, you take that risk. If you want to avoid the risk, you take the money out of rotation and wait before selling calls."

DEFENDP7. Risk controls, leverage & buying power

Essentially: there aren't any. No stops ("never sell at a loss… if you're thinking of selling at a loss, you didn't pay attention to rule number one"), no drawdown limit, no diversification cap, no hedges, no margin/leverage discussed, the $50k averaging cap as the lone number. The system's real risk controls are upstream, the quality screen (P2) and the refusal to buy falling knives or highs. IRA-compatible by design. Strike sizing on weak stocks is judged by average daily range ("the average movement per day was only like a dollar or a buck fifty"), the exact method that failed in the Target loss.

P8. Worked example: one healthy week, start to finish

Monday 9:30: his JWN (Nordstrom) walkthrough 🟢. Stock at $21.40–21.47. Do I like Nordstrom? Yes → buy 100 shares at the open. Sell this Friday's $21.50 call for $0.27, over 1% banked at fill. The stock's quarterly dividend is $0.19; the weekly premium beats it: "premium higher than the dividend, that's like getting four dividends in one week."

• Friday, stock ≥ $21.50 → called away. Kept: $27 premium + ~$3–10 price gain. Restart Monday on whatever screens best.
• Friday, stock < $21.50 → keep shares, and Monday sell the next weekly. Hold through an ex-date and the $0.19 dividend stacks on top: "1%, 1%, 1%, dividend."
• Stock slides for weeks → strikes walk down with it (P6), premiums shrink toward the 0.5% floor, position joins the hold-forever book. This fork is where the Evidence section picks up the story.

P9. Scenario quick-reference

📖 DEEP DIVE

D1. The five rules: his fixed script, verbatim

Recited near-identically at the top of every stream 🟢 (that repetition is why it's trustworthy as his real system):

"Rule number one: never buy anything you do not want to hold on to long term, love, honor, obey, till death do you part. Think of your stocks the same way.

Rule two: never sell at a loss. It defeats the purpose of the game.

Rule three: make sure the company's consistently profitable.

Rule four: weekly options only.

Rule five: make sure all the numbers are working in your favor."

He self-references: "There's over 2,000 videos on YouTube, all saying the exact same thing." Rules 1 and 2 are explicitly linked: "If you paid attention to rule number one, rule number two should never be an issue."

D2. Mental models

• Monopoly 🟢: "This is a game once you learn the rules. Four green houses, one red hotel. Round and round you go. Stay away from jail, collect $200." The weekly cycle as a board loop.
• The rental house 🟢, the whole loss philosophy in one analogy: "You pay $200,000 for a house. It drops to $150,000. Do you sell it at a loss, or do you let the people renting it stay there and continue to pay you rent? Same thing. Stop looking at the prices." (Where it breaks: rent never caps the house's recovery; a call does, see the Target loss.)
• The vending machine 🟢: "This vending machine's $24,400 and it's giving me $79 this week… once I own it I can sell a covered call every single week." Capital buys a premium-dispensing asset.
• "You're buying the dividend, not the shares" 🟢: "Whether you bought it at 11 or 21, you get the exact same dividend. You're buying a rate of return."
• Sell in May? He trades year-round; ignores news and tariffs: "The stock market's been around for over 400 years. People in power come and go… it keeps going like the Energizer Bunny."

D3. The 1%-a-week claim, in full

• The pitch, pre-empting the objection every night 🟢: "1% a week is over 50% a year. And yes, I've heard it, nobody gets 50% a year. You don't need to tell me. I'm not getting 50% a year. I'm getting 1% every week. Context and perception."
• Compounded version: "That's over 50% by the end of the year. Compounded, it's 64%." Alternate framing: "averaged 5% a month, over 60% by the end of the year."
• Dollar framing: "$50,000 portfolio, I want $500 a week. $100,000, $1,000 a week. 1% is 1%."
• Why not monthlies 🟢: "Monthlies pay 1 to 2%, that's 12 to 24% per year. Fine. But a weekly at 1% is 52%. Why would I bother looking at monthlies?" (May, June, July… "those are months. Twelve of them." He rejected an entire stock because its chain was monthly.)
• Retirement math he teaches 🟢: "Work the equation backwards. If you have $100,000, you'll average about a $50,000-per-year return at 1% per week. If you need $3,000 a month, $100,000 would be fine, but perfect the strategy before you quit your job."
• Realized examples he showed: 1.9%, 3.2%, 3.7%, 6.8% (Hertz), 8.7% weeks, and sub-1% weeks he took anyway on wounded positions.

D4. The dividend-capture side-system ("Dividends on Steroids" / "Double Dividends")

A separate play, also published as Kindle books under the same names 🟢:

• Enter at the open 10 days before the ex-dividend date, "it gives more time for the stock to make the movement based on other investors coming in to capture that dividend" (front-running the capture crowd's bid-up).
• Exit with the price pop before/at ex-date, the dividend itself is optional; the goal is "can I collect the dividend, get out with a profit, and move on to the next dog."
• Claimed hit rate: 🔴 "97% of the time. I love that number", checked against an unnamed seasonality tool showing 1-day-average patterns; unverified.
• Worst case: hold a quality name (Nike example) and collect the ~1.13% yield, "still better than the CDs the banks are offering."
• Ex-date mechanics he teaches: announcement date, ex-date, date of record ("whoever owns the stock on the date of record is entitled"), payment date.

ENTERD5. Cash-secured puts: trades them, won't teach them, and they're "the same thing"

• The gate 🟢: "Cash secured puts, yes, I do them, but I'm not going to teach them here. I'm already giving you something for free. I have to draw the line somewhere." Also: "I love cash secured puts."
• The equivalence, his framing 🟢: "Covered calls or cash-secured puts, it's basically the exact same. You're taking a big chunk of money, putting it aside as collateral, and getting a return on that money." Same watchlist for both; naked options acknowledged as a later account-status thing, not taught.
• Synthesis (mine, not his): his public half + a CSP entry leg = the wheel. If you want the missing half, TJ WheelDeal's documented CSP mechanics (30–45 DTE, 20–40Δ, RSI 30–35, below the 200-day) bolt onto Papa G's screen cleanly: sell the put at the price you'd happily pay → assigned = own it cheaper than Monday's open → run his covered-call cadence from there. Keep them separate only if you want to stay strictly inside what he's publicly verified live.

D6. What he refuses to use, and why

🟢 "The Greeks, alpha, beta, vega, theta, rho, I don't even bother with them. There's a time and place for everything under heaven. For covered calls, the Greeks got nothing to do with it. Is that the 30-day high? Yes or no. Where's the 30-day bottom? The Greeks have nothing to do with that." Also refused on-air: day trading, penny stocks ("tried them many years ago, just didn't work"), buying options ("80% of all options expire worthless"), betting downside on no-dividend names (GME: "no dividends, that's a no"), iron condors/credit spread lessons ("I could, but I'm not going to"), politics and religion. On 401(k)s: "unless you're getting matching funds, I wouldn't do it" (a 100% match = "that's 100% return").

D7. Color: the person behind it

Retired at ~60 after a long run ("I stumbled onto…", varied careers incl. a pet-products business: "I could make $20–30,000 with a phone call"); teaches from six screens; moderators run his chat; blunt with viewers ("Well, then you deserve to lose, brother", to someone who'd never checked the Commitment of Traders report before trading commodities); his self-described best trade was a fat-finger: "I was looking to buy United Airlines, UAL, I hit the wrong one and bought U. Two days later she shot through the roof. Thanks for that mistake."

ENTERD8. The option math that corners him (why sub-basis strikes are inevitable)

My analysis (Black-Scholes), not his, added because it explains the single most important weakness in this system better than any quote does.

The question it answers: why doesn't he just sell the weekly call at his cost basis on a fallen stock, so assignment can never lock in a loss?

Because that call is worth zero. Worked example, stock bought at $135 now trading at $100 (his Target situation), selling the $135 "breakeven" call:

A strike 35% out of the money has no value at 7 days. No bid, no fill, ever. What a 7-day call actually pays on that $100 stock (IV 35%):

The corner: his rule 4 (weekly options only) + his 1%/week target force the strike to within ~1-2% of the current price. On any position down more than a few percent, that strike is below his cost basis by construction. The sub-basis writing documented in Evidence E1 is not sloppiness, it is the only way to keep the weekly 1% coming on a fallen stock. The alternatives are: accept ~0.5% (his stated floor, 3 strikes out), sit out entirely (the defense he names after Target but doesn't practice), or abandon weeklies for 6-12 month calls at basis, which pay real money ($180-$520 in the example) but violate rule 4 and cap recovery for a year.

This tradeoff is the entire engineering problem of his system. An automated version of this strategy and the design options around this exact corner are worked through in HANDOFF_IBKR_COVERED_CALL_BOT.md in this folder.

🔍 AUDIT: an independent read

Mine, not his.

What's genuinely good

What concerns me

Before copying any of it

1. Decide your sub-basis rule first. His system has no answer for "the strike that pays 1% is below what I paid" except hope-and-roll. Fix: only write at/above basis (accept skipped weeks), or pre-accept assignment losses as a cost of rent.
2. Replace "never sell at a loss" with an actual number, a max drawdown or thesis-break trigger. A rule about vocabulary is not a plan.
3. Beware the weekly-yield filter. If a "safe dividend stock" pays 1%+ per week, the market is pricing real risk, his Hertz/IONQ/SMR book is the receipt.
4. His Monday/theta/calculator discipline is worth stealing wholesale. So is the Aristocrats screen.
5. Mind the dead-capital cost if you scale: a penny call on Tuesday is freed collateral everywhere except in this system.

Bottom line

The most teachable and structurally safest per-trade system of the three, covered, unlevered, screened against a real quality list, executed on a fixed weekly ritual. And the weakest loss-handling of the three: losses aren't managed, they're renamed. Borrow the screen, the Monday ritual, and the calculator habit; bring your own rules for what happens when the stock is 30% below your basis and the only strike that pays sits below what you paid.

📓 EVIDENCE & POSITION RECORD

E1. His real book: read on-air, position by position 🟢

Aired 2026-03-31 (053Ovur8Mc4); the HOG row is from a 2025-05-12 stream (0ideVKo3ErA) and may no longer be held. Live mark-to-market of this exact book: see the Forward Tracker, which as of 2026-08-14 shows it net negative ~$40k vs his bases, led by HTZ collapsing to ~$2.24 (−56% below his $5.11 basis) since the walkthrough.

Rough capital in these six alone: $400k+ (HTZ ≈ $87k, IONQ ≈ $94k, HOG ≈ $78k, KSS ≈ $63k, SMR ≈ $34k).

The strike column vs the basis column is the whole story: every loser is being written below cost, assignment would realize −$2.67/sh (KSS), −$9.67 (IONQ), −$11.62 (HOG), −$0.61 (HTZ). He narrates it without alarm ("which is less than what I paid for it") and leans on the roll ("if it gets close, I'll push it out until next week"). The 1% he reports on these is against original basis (P6).

E1c. Position log from dated stream transcripts (2026-05-19 → 09-10)

78 dated streams in the original window were scanned, plus 14 more through 2026-08-29 and 8 more (4 sessions, simulcast in pairs) through 2026-09-11 (his shows simulcast in duplicate pairs; deduped). Caveat that matters: he reads viewer chat aloud, so most position statements on stream are viewers', not his. Only his own are logged as his:

His own positions confirmed in the window:

Viewer positions he coached in the window (excluded from his book, shown because his answers reveal the method): Bobby's 8,000 AMD @ $239; Antworld down 5% on NKE from $44.94 "been selling the 45s" (told, in effect, to keep collecting).

Read against the Forward Tracker: the fresh QCOM-at-160-vs-228 admission (08-07) plus the E1 book (03-31) means at least five sub-basis call-writing positions across five months, this is standing practice, not a one-off. The September streams add three more to that count in two sessions. LRCX (basis $393, writing the $340s) and ORCL (basis above $145, writing the $145s and short them in the money) are both the same structure, and on ORCL he narrates the trap out loud: "I sold a strike price below my cost basis, which puts me at risk if the stock kept going up." That is seven sub-basis positions across six months, and it is now the majority of his disclosed book.

➕ What the September batch does and does not give us. Three names he had never disclosed before (LRCX, NFLX, ORCL) is the largest single addition since the 03-31 walkthrough, and LRCX and NFLX both arrive with a stated cost basis, so they are trackable from day one. But none of it is a full-book walkthrough: these are individual names he happened to pull up while answering questions. His book still cannot be diffed for exits, and it still takes a second complete walkthrough to change that. Every one of the three was checked against the viewer-chat caveat before logging; each is first person, inside his own five-questions ritual.

E1d. 2026-09-03: he stated two incompatible year-to-date results in one stream 🟢

Both statements are first person about his own accounts, in the same session (uploaded twice as oE4OzUKl0HA and COh5DNOJvBQ), roughly eighteen minutes of transcript apart. He never reconciles them and no one on the stream asks.

Early, opening the show:

"I am technically 29% above my projected goal. Cool beans. I'm pretty sure I'm at 35. Okay, I'm at 35% for the year in one of my accounts and another account is up like 60-something percent. It's crazy."

Later, mid-answer about crash risk:

"My account right now is down about 40% from the beginning of the year. Even though I consistently make over 1% every week. I think this week it was 4%. Crazy, 4% this week. But my total account from the beginning of the year is down 40%. But I still making my 1% over 1% per week. That works for me."

He also says, in the same stream, "remember I said my account is six figures."

⚠️ This is the first account-level drawdown he has ever stated on the record, and it sits inside the same hour as a +35% and a +60% claim. Three readings are possible and he gives no way to choose between them: (a) different accounts, the winners quoted first and the aggregate quoted later; (b) "up 35% for the year" means his weekly-premium tally while "down 40%" means net liquidity, which is precisely the gap the 1%-a-week claim depends on people not noticing (see D3); (c) one of the numbers is wrong.

Why (b) is the one to watch. It is the whole D8 problem stated by him, out loud: you can bank over 1% a week in premium every week and still be down 40% on the account, because the premium is small and the underlying losses are not. His own words, "I consistently make over 1% every week... but my total account from the beginning of the year is down 40%," are the clearest confirmation in this dossier that the two figures measure different things and that only one of them is the return.

No dollar figures, no account names, no reconciliation offered. Logged verbatim; nothing here is a published number, so nothing is priced off it.

E2. 🔴 The $15,000 realized loss: Target (TGT)

"Oh my God, you really want me to relive that over again." 🟢, told in full with numbers. The retelling aired 2024-03-23 (04E-qvHakH0), so the loss itself dates to early 2024 or before, well before the current book:

• Bought ~1,000 shares, July, $135. Fell to $102, recovered to $110.
• Sold the $114 calls (5 strikes OTM) for $0.50, sized off the average daily range (~$1–1.50/day → a 5-day range the strike sat safely outside).
• TGT ripped to $126, ~3× its normal weekly range. The 50¢ call became $15.
• The choice: "I either pay out the $15,000 or I lose $25,000. 15, 25, which one? You have no choice." (Assignment at $114 on a $135 basis = −$21/sh… he quotes $25k vs the $110-area math; either way worse.) He paid the $15,000.
• His verdict: "I was selling five strikes out of the money, which normally would never make that kind of movement, until it did. It works until it doesn't. If you dance to the music, you are going to pay the Fiddler." Context: "I had six positions; the other four were making a nice amount."
• The defense he names: "Take the money out of rotation and wait before selling calls [on a down stock].", the exact opposite of the E1 table.

EVIDENCEE3. Other confirmed trades & records

Not yet found: any account-level P&L curve, audited weekly-return history, or a matched entry→exit ledger. His nightly "top 5" recap videos (CLS 4.2% · CAS 1.9% · EOG 1.5% · RILY 4.3% · HTZ 6.8% format) are candidate lists, not fills.

E4. Platforms & footprint (no X/Twitter found)

Instagram @the_10_minute_trader · TikTok @dividendstocktalk · Patreon (patreon.com/dividendstocktalk) · Apple Podcasts "Dividend Stock Talk" · site gaudinoenterprises.com (bio: "has spent years refining dividend-based trading strategies", no credentials listed) · LinkedIn lists him as Co-founder of The 10 Minute Trader (second co-founder unidentified) · Kindle books under "James A Gaudino Sr.": Dividend Kings, Trading with Dividends, Dividends On Steroids, the book titles matching his on-air strategy names corroborate a long-developed written system.

🧾 SOURCING & METHOD

• Coverage: 1,656+ of ~1,768 stream/video transcripts pulled and mined (the remainder had no captions, mostly music/holiday streams). The core rules repeat verbatim across years; confidence in the SOP is high.
• No panels: he streams solo with a chat, the guest-attribution problem that affects TJ's dossier doesn't apply. Everything tagged 🟢 is him.
• Gaps: paid-group content (his CSP mechanics live there); no broker screenshots (the E1 book was read aloud, not shown); dividend-capture 97% claim rests on an unnamed tool; the second co-founder.
• Terminology quick-key: 1% is 1% · the five rules · Dividends on Steroids / Double Dividends · date of record · the rental house · "the numbers work."