Not by or authorized by DeMark's company. He has never made any claims to the validity of using it in a strategy. Try in isolation buying when RSI is oversold or selling when it is overbought. Beginners make that mistake. But when used with confluence of other factors it can be profitable. So guess what if your seq strat bought just because a buy 13 appeared or sold if sell 13 appeared it would probably not show an edge either. BTW did you use any of the numerous TD entry techniques, or stop loss calculated using widest range bar subtracted from lowest low (buy) or added to highest high (sell) or money management he recommends? No I didn't think so. It is ridiculus how many versions and claims and counter-claims I have seen of his indicator, repeat indicator. I've said it before and will say it again, it is not nor does it claim to be the holy grail or infallible. It just works. Too bad for those who don't see it. But I hope the overwhelming majority continue to believe it doesn't work. Because it works best counter-trend which only works if the majority are thinking the opposite. And the majority here certainly fall into that category.
I guess Tom DeMark is fooling the Chinese now. On Forbes website 12/5/12 comments DeMark made the day before concerning the Shanghai Stock index: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/12/05/china-comeback-in-place-bears-be-warned/ Only a setup in place on daily but TD combo present on weekly.
I see there are still folks looking for the "simple holy grail"... some people never learn the obvious.....
first do you take trades by design using demarks methods,I mean do you really put your money where your bias is? why do I get the impression you could be a shill for demark, or maybe even his son or relative?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100382535 thoughts? I found this works great if the low holds, also says he is not a trend follower.
I have investigated Sequential and Combo forwards, backwards, and sideways (and lost a shitload of money trading it to boot) and although I believe that the way in which oxfordstrat applied Sequential is too simplistic..we both came to the same conclusion which is...Sequential is a piece of crap - I would also add Combo is pretty useless also
I did additional tests based on Perl's work/book and results were even worse. But you touched one interesting point regarding simplicity. I think if we would complicate the test by additional layers of rules/indicators and get negative results, believers would argue that the choice of additional tools was not correct. But If we would get positive results, the same could be achieved without pieces that do not add value. I tend to believe that tests of isolated pieces is the best way to approach a system development. Time exits are quite efficient way to test these isolated pieces before the whole is built.