Forever, Einstein. Besides, for somebody who claimed "trends are bullshit, they only exist after the fact", htf would you know when by your admission, you can't even define them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_definition VS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition
I've written tens of thousands of words regarding trends, but this time I'm making no claims, been that road before, it's better to play dumb. Best wishes in your trading.
Similar to what is implied in another post, in trading "theory" and "operation" are very different. In "theory", we all agree with that one stock will eventually go down after it goes up unless it goes bankrupt or is acquired right after stopping going up ( those extreme cases should be considered separately). This is absolute! However we cannot use it in operation with 100% accuracy because the "theory" cannot tell when it will happen with 100% certainty. Buy1sell2's definition may be arbitrary for you, however as long as Buy1sell2 is consistent about the definition ( becoming absolute or precise for Buy1sell 2), I believe successful trading can be built based on that. I also believe a successful trader based on charts could trade with consistent profit based on any definition on trend the traders are willing to use (just the traders will make more consistent money using their favorite definition), because it is the trading skills but not the definition will help the trader makes the money. Just sharing, could be totally wrong.
I'll play a hand. Crude will exceed Fridays' high by a minimum of 50 cents. 70-80 cents above the high is likely, would give more information, and a better price to short.
Well that's more like it. That would be real trading. You may be right or you may be wrong. Only time will tell. But why 50-80 ? 500 would make it very interesting.