I am sorry, explaining why exact setups are taken is not the purpose of this journal. I created another thread (linked in this one a few pages up) for the sake of general TA discussion and think questions related to setups (if any) are more appropriate there. This thread is for plain results mostly.
Wha? Your original post had a mission statement. After multiple arguments on the matter I decided to bring a bit of objectivity to the field of continuous holy war and demonstrate some of the actual performance achieved with use of a couple simple TA signals. Will I prove TA has some value or the opposite, time will show. Saying I made that much with this blotter, how is anyone supposed to believe you did it with TA?
Let's do results first, then argue was it objective TA or not. That's the idea to keep things in a logical order, because I don't want to argue about the particular method used now until results are in place.
That is my assumption, and it's far too early to be judgmental and jumping into conclusions, I am merely offering an observation that the initial performance of the journal has been, for the time being, less than stellar. As others have, objectively pointed it out, there are more posts than trades, for a daytrader, that's an observation that's hard to go unnoticed; which is why the OP is getting the multiple comments on the matter. With that said, best of luck to the OP, wish him the best in his journal development and applaud his transparency and his patience with dealing with public criticism; in that regard he's taking his archenemy Surf to school. Here's to a better week, cheers!
Agree, let's give it some more time to see how it plays out. A few weeks of breakeven trading is nothing to worry about. The "educators" and hindsight superstars will never concede this, but drawdown is a fact of life. It took me a while to figure out the truth too--- the tales of making 1000% a year, 50% of daily range each day, no losing days, average joe cubicle cowboys quitting their jobs to trade for a living--- are pure fantasy.
Buddy, it's your thread. But you know there is a PnL thread. One thing I wish IB had, that drawdown number on your PnL. That's cool.
I appreciate your understanding. PnL thread would have performance rather fragmented while I want to keep it in order here on ET. I promise that when we have enough sample size which most people will accept as serious proof and unlikely a random streak, TA matter will be discussed (or dismissed cause the sh*t doesn't work ).
Out of curiosity, how many trades or what's the duration of the results before you begin discussing the "details" of the TA. For example, you saying if will be about 6 months of performance before any TA details are discussed. Should the reader than be require to review every one of your history of posted trades in this journal to see the TA correlated or you're going to review all trades and the TA behind each or you'll just explain the TA and then let the reader "assume" your posted performance in this journal was via that TA. ? My point, you're going to have to post charts of some of your trades that correlates with the TA discussed on your charts or else your goal to prove TA works will have failed big time. Would it just be easier to just post your "past" broker statements going back a few months and then just discuss the TA now that correlates with your already existing trade history. I'm asking the above questions because the way you're doing this reminds me of a new trader or of someone with a new trade method to explain why you're not using any existing trade history. Last of all, why not discuss the specific details of the TA now in that other thread instead of later. I'll say this again. You're approach to trying to prove TA is wrong primarily because there's NO technical analysis discussion under the facade the TA will be discussed later in another thread.
Cornix has repeatedly stated that this thread is about his PnL resulting from TA trading and not about the actual signals/patterns themselves.