Then write to him privately, or expect others to participate. That's the definition of a public forum.
There are several sources, including where you were at http://www.median-line-study.com/free-download/ where the result is a 4.0mb PDF. It's also freely available in other first-page Google results in various forms. I'll post the file right here if that's allowed. (And no doubt about it, that web site looks absolutely HORRIBLE. Wouldn't be the first one though, to still contain useful information. What's that saying about books... and covers...) Anyway he studied a controlled implementation of median lines in the grains markets between 1990 and 2005 with results which confirm previous stats by Timothy Morge, himself having confirmed those of Alan Andrews in his own publication which I don't have on hand. The age of this method isn't the issue here, so I won't debate your prejudice against the 1960's. I'm just showing you a specific example of a statistically significant use of price alone, which conflicts directly with claims that price is purely random. To dismiss those would dismiss as coincidental the proven concepts of trend lines and mean reversion which is why I have yet to reconcile what I read from other credible sources and from random proponents including yourself. (You might also encounter a book on median lines by Patrick Mikula - that one is just detailing his comprehension of the Andrews course, no useful empirical study there.) Back to your other point: how would you characterize a "successful prop firm"? The term seems to have a very broad definition (from overseas high-leverage small-game predators to full hedge funds) and I was never able to find anything compelling for me, except maybe Bright but their web site (talk about books with bad covers!) talks about future events in "March 2013" and "October 2014", so I wonder if they're still even active. One or two closer to where I live, with barely a web site at all, not inspiring for what's now a high-tech game. Edit: typos
Why can't there be a thread about me? You quite liked that this thread was initially about you! ps. I've gone through that thread back in 2002 where you described your method at the time of buying or selling once price broke 2 points above or below the opening range. I liked how you were very specific about your stop being 5 points away, and how this would be moved to break even once price moved 5 points in the direction of the trade. I find it interesting that at the time when the NQ was roughly around 1000, you were using a 5 point stop. Now that we are over 4000, certainly these numbers of buying 2 points above or below the range and using a 5 point stop might not work as well since they might be too tight. But its still interesting because this is at least something tangible, and whats even nicer is that you were stating how you did have to take those 5 point losses every now and then. What's also interesting was that back then, as much as today, you are using the ES an an almost indicator (this you don't mention in your PDF which seems to be a very good filter, which proved itself even today as price dropped below the overnight low of 4434 at the same time that the ES just finished making a higher low.) On this attached chart, an SLA short would trigger, and of course its a loss, but if one were watching the ES, it might be a good enough reason not to take it. This is why I kept saying over and over again, why don't you just show us what you do/did as opposed to just outlining a rough plan. Most of us would be smart enough to see that you skip many SLA trades and hence SLA on its own really gets you in trouble. Also of interest was the fact that your entry at 2 points above had zero confirmation. Price either hit your entry or it didn't with the assumption being of course that if someone pushed price up 2 points past a previous extreme that it would keep going in this direciton. Now I'm not sure how the data feeds were back then, if you could see the right tick bob up and down so well, but its still interesting that you were operating from more of a statistical framework rather than a "feel what the price is telling you" framework. Sure you use swings points and all that which is still price talking to you, but still, the things you point out are clearly on the chart and more tangible and hence easier to actually test.
I find this correlation between the NQ and ES quite interesting, so I'm actually doing my best to show it here. I tried to line up my charts exactly so that the times match up vertically. You see that as the NQ SLA trade triggers, price on the ES just printed a higher low and is going sideways. I've never watched the ES before, just today I did, but I might have to make a little window for it somewhere across my two screens.
I had a specific disagreement with someone else. That is where the discussion belongs. You barge in and tell me what I should and shouldn't say. If you don't like what I write to others, don't read it. It is not directed at you. You don't get to say what I can or can't write.
Where is his doctoral dissertation. Where is it published? Im going to destroy this bullshit. Whats his doctorate in? This is the guy this is all based on. No records of his doctorate in finance either. A freaking medical doctor??? WTF???
Then unless you're someone really special, the same applies to everyone else who wishes to participate in this public exchange of ideas.
The document's there if you want to check it out. The information it contains speaks for itself. You may want to dismiss it for what it is of course, but please don't do so because the author's unknown or likes childish web design. I'm not here to vouch for the guy personally; I don't know his full story.
I have simply not wanted to engage in a discussion with you on a specific matter that someone else and I disagree over. That would be quite pointless, like Ukraine discussing a ceasefire with China. I appreciate you keenly want to participate, you seem intelligent, and I'm sure I would enjoy a general discussion with you, but not on the specific matter here.