Any dipstick that knows how to trade expanding triangles or channels would know the odds favor a slide south. Not north.
Al Brooks' bio - "... For the first 10 years of trading, he spent 10,000 hours writing and testing indicators and systems, making trading far more complicated than what logic told him it should be. About 10 years ago, he decided to start over again from the bottom up and trade off just price action, with the intention of adding indicators as needed over time. What he discovered was that simply reading price action alone off a single chart was all that was needed to be a successful trader, and he therefore decided to eschew indicators and adopted a minimalist perspective on trading.
Yes that minimalist approach was focusing only on price action without indicators other than one or two MA’s and no volume. That word minimalist didn’t mean it was not complicated. After taking that minimalist approach he wrote 4 books and three of those with over 500 pages each and produced a video course several hours long that takes a long time to digest. All this to view of trading from a PA angle. It was only minimalist in the sense that it’s focus is how to trade PA. It is simplistic by no means. And it takes a long time to internalize and get good at what he teaches.
Many fail to sieze and master even a single aspect of the Big Al Bible and throw the baby out with the bathwater in frustration and disgust. It is not necessary to absorb the entire bulk of Big Al's prodigous output in order to profit from his published protocols which are freely available online and fleshed out by others as well. Like Trendlines and Trend Channels? Big Al's got a chapter on em. So do a thousand others. Why eschew Brooks' treatment of them? It's out there free, same as it is at a hundred other links. Like trading Pullbacks? Like trading Breakouts? Big Al's got a chapter on em. So do a thousand other people. Why eschew Brooks' treatment of them? It's out there free, same as it is at a hundred other links. Here's my point. The opportunity cost of absorbing The Brooks Bible before mastering any single aspect of it is a redonkulous fee. Daytrading noobs and strivers - consider focusing on one simple setup, on one timeframe. To pull a Padman and spend decades on the elephant of Brooks at the expense of never mastering one single simple Brooks setup is imho, BWOT. (Big Waste Of Time). Pick one. Test it. Master it. Trade it. Simple. Reading price charts bar by bar. Brooks https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...ooks-the-padu-way.363080/page-32#post-5803206
It is obvious to myself that you have never really read, studied, nor digested what Brooks offers. His explanations of the markets and how to trade them go way beyond a simple explanation of PA patterns that can be found for free on the internet. But whatever you think floats your boat is what you will do whether you should or not. Good luck!
Yeah, life's too short to grok the entire Brooks Dogma imho. Lots of those attempts lying off to the side of Traders Blvd, who never mastered even the simplest of Brooks setups, know what I mean vern? Padman. Day traders can do fine by doing stats on setups and triggers and working the ones that produce. So when his first book prints this, it is just a short chapter 30 minutes and done, holmes, and a trader can investigate that for himself, use the information from multiple sources and charts and timeframes and a rules based trader can draft some prototype rules. Do stats. Hone the rules. Pass or Fail the method. Go from there. Done. Next case. Not a decade or lifetime persuit, lol. Philosiphizin' is a different persuit involving advanced handwaving arts, imho. Results speak and resonate. To each their own. Everybody has the same 24 hours in a day and no two traders trade alike. and some no longer 'trade'.
Yes to 'having read, yes to studied the setups of interest, and mos def yes to having digested and absorbed the information that is tested for productivity that he touts along with many other sources on pullbacks and breakouts. It is not rocket science. Mastering Brooks is not the objective. Mastering setups is. Implementing a productive method that Brooks touts as well as any others that emerge is the objective. Cashola is the objective, lol. So to your observation may I comment with a robust: in your own artistic way. As the 80 20 rule states, "Be Selective, Not Exhaustive." Yowsuh! 20% contains 80% of the benefit. Sometimes 2% contains all ya need. LOL Wishing you nothing but good luck for the future!