Actually, that's not quite true. You can go the other way around from quantifying market data and observing the patterns that arise out of such a practice. Personally, I don't use H&S patterns myself; I just included it as an example.
Not sure what your saying but I'll stay with my view that before someone can quantify something...they first need to know it unless in situations that someone hands them a code and they then run tests on it without needing to understand it and without needing to have any real time experience with the pattern and without any actual trade experience with the pattern. The latter is notorious by many in the academia field. They've never traded the pattern, never experience it but they are given a code for testing. They then test the pattern and declare it doesn't work or it works...for publishing in a book or article online. As a reminder, just because something has been identified...doesn't imply it will remain as such after identification. The latter is the trader's responsibility to adapt in a profit way...as in react to something different that shows up after identification. This is the hard part of trading.
Reversal patterns are often fools gold. The lower high (higher low) in a H&S can certainly be part of a complex correction. Assume trend until it is clearly broken and a new trend begun. It's a lot easier and safer than trying to pick turning points.
Wonderful article! This is the type of info that should be shared around the net. Shame on the search engines for no longer positioning this put up higher! I am not sure where you are getting your info, but good topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more.