I knew you were bullshitting. The only fool here is you who honestly believes professionals use charts to make any sort of predictions. Ridiculous. You obviously never worked in this industry.
The problem is OP is using retail/mainstream ways of looking at PA. The stuff I use isn’t mentioned in any books. That’s bc I was taught years ago to break down price bar by bar and figure out what it’s saying with my own words and thoughts about market dynamics. If you’re reading a book about it, you’re doing it wrong. I sat down with a decade of ES charts and spent thousands of hours studying raw charts. Then I put my own filters on. Then slowly tested ideas. U stare at ES long enough, things just repeat. It’s not obvious to the untrained eye and I’ll never be able to convince you. but I’ll tell you what. My wife believes it works bc she sees the nice 5 figure wire transfers into my checking every month
I knew you'd be too lazy to look it up...here ya go sparky Simons wondered if there might be a better way to parse their data trove. Perhaps breaking the day up into finer segments might enable the team to dissect intraday pricing information and unearth new, undetected patterns. Laufer began splitting the day in half, then into quarters, eventually deciding five-minute bars were the ideal way to carve things up. Crucially, Straus now had access to improved computer-processing power, making it easier for Laufer to compare small slices of historic data. Did the 188th five-minute bar in the cocoa-futures market regularly fall on days investors got nervous, while bar 199 usually rebounded? Perhaps bar 50 in the gold market saw strong buying on days investors worried about inflation but bar 63 often showed weakness? Laufer’s five-minute bars gave the team the ability to identify new trends, oddities, and other phenomena, or, in their parlance, nonrandom trading effects. Straus and others conducted tests to ensure they hadn’t mined so deeply into their data that they had arrived at bogus trading strategies, but many of the new signals seemed to hold up.
That's my stance and I think most profitable market practitioners fully agree with this assessment. No compromise needed. I can fully accept that you or others arrive at different conclusions. The market needs diverse thoughts. Though, not everyone can go home profitable.
Lol, that does not mean they traded off charts. On all temporal data a researcher must dissect by timespan whenever one is windowing time series based datasets. You proved exactly nothing that is relevant to this discussion, the funny thing is you don't even know it. Edit: Where did Jim Simons every shared chart trading with Gregory Zuckerman ever? You are citing from a book written by a journalist. I told you that there is zero indication by anyone from RT that anyone there ever traded based off charts.
Charts ARE data. Entirely composed of data. Points of data combined produces charts. One can trade off individual data points in relation to other data points. Or one can trade off graphical representations of combined data points. Namely charts. Do you not know that grasshopper? You are not yet ready little grasshopper.
He is too stupid to understand that data is data and patterns are patterns whether represented on a chart or a spreadsheet or a data base.
And all that matters is what after this trade, is what?? If you repeat what you stated for every triangle breakout scenario on "large volume" for the next or past XXX to X,XXX trades is the expectancy greater than 0.00 and acceptable drawdown while obtaining expectancy greater than 0.00. If expectancy greater than 0.00, You Have EDGE.------> Make Money If expectancy less than 0.00, You Have NO EDGE. go back and try again. Let me know if you disagree or agree with this logical statement.