I looked back at Mtrader's posts and couldn't find what you described. Then I used the search engine. Mtrader's never used the word 'noise'. Is there a different word I should search for? Chop? Congestion?
That's the key...constantly improving our trading as discretionary traders is highly possible for us as traders in the age of algorithms. The problem is that most traders are not willing to adapt. Change is an uncomfortable thing to the typical retail trader and ET forum is full of examples of such. Yet, we all know based on the studies...there are LESS traders today than prior to the 2008 - 2009 financial fiasco...not due to algos. Its due to key changes in volatility that many traders failed to adjust (adapt) that was caused by the 2008 - 2009 fiasco. The recent China fiasco of August 2015 is just another example of how volatility has a great impact on us retail traders. You can also put the blame on changes in exchange rules since the late 1990s that has impacted traders in a negative way. Anyway, algos is a problem but not as big of a problem as the above as noted to you earlier when you in prior said its impossible when I made it clear that the small percentage of profitable retail traders are not trying to trade against the algo...not successfully possible. Instead, successful retail traders are following volatility while algo don't want the volatility while they concentrate on competing against other algos. Its funny because there's a guy here that posted his backtest results (impressive results) and didn't understand the drawdowns of his trade method. It took constant repeating to him by others here for him to overlap a VIX chart with his daily backtest trading results... He discover his trade method was very sensitive to key changes in volatility. The result was that he doesn't trade every day now. Instead, he only trades when volatility is high or changes dramatically. Thus, he's become more of an efficient trader. There's many other ways that traders are adapting in the new age of trading WITH (not against) algo city. Hopefully, you don't stay stuck on the "its impossible" thingy and spend your time & energy to adapt. If you're not willing to adapt...stay away from trading and find another career. Adapt or find another career.
Literally, LOL. Nice job! Here's a hint: Trade your own game. If you fail then you are a dumbass and 99% of elitedumbass applauds you because they're also morons. If you succeed then you are a hero that deserves the praise you get. Simple as that. Will anyone be able to repeat it? No. So you're "lucky" and not that predictive. What else is new. :/
Can you debate patterns form in charts ? You cannot because they do, now, do your freaking homework, instead of assuming everyone sucks at it because you do.
There is tremendous different between a random pattern and a psychology pattern, one shows blood, the other shows nothing.
Price has many of the random patterns found in random data but random data has few if any of the non-random patterns found in price.
I find technical analysis works really well on daily charts for the es. Trendlines, channels, triangles. Breaks and reversals of support and resistance work extremely well. For instance, once a pattern is validated by four or more points that Honor the pattern, when broken, the pattern support will become resistance. Or reistence support. For example take a upward trendline on the daily es chart validated with three touches. When that trend line breaks, price will Honor the underside of that trend line which now acts as a great resistent point. Happens all the time. It's just a self fulfilling prophecy but happens all the time because enough traders are watching it
The ES appears quite predictable and rational with an after-the-fact analysis as some trading authors know, actually properly managing trades is extremely difficult. Friday's daily low broke below support before continuing higher, I'm sure plenty of retail traders had their stops run there at the 1880 area.
You don't have any data whatsoever to prove your theories. We can all make up theories that sound good but rarely are true. Backtesting has taught me that no matter how logical something sounds, reality might be the opposite and the proof is in the data.