No I wouldn't, because of my systematic approach I know I will have X % of losing trades. The example is not a good one, because in every successful system there are still losing trades. So even the best trader in the world could be shot. A systematic approach does not mean only winning trades. It means that you know why you take a trade. If you depend on luck you just take a trade but have no clue and hope to be lucky. But if we can do 10 trades and I have less than 6 winners I wouldn't have a problem with that gun. Because I know my chances. But only on the condition that you trade 10 trades with luck and put the gun against your head too if you have less than 6 winners. As you depend on luck you have no clue how many winning trades you will have. You don't know your chances. That's the difference between you and me.
I get all that, of course in a sample of trades person that knows what he is doing would prevail. But, I am not talking about that. When you are putting on a trade there is absolutely no definitive way of knowing whether it will be stopped out, whether it would run after it stopped you out, whether it would run for a lot less what you expected or whether it would run substantially more than expected, you have no influence over it or inside information. So it's based on luck.
Is that a potential double bottom there? Why did S&P rally from current reaction low? Coincidence? Did no one see that reaction low? You either take the trade or you don't.
If you dont understand the title of the thread then heaven help us. Do large banks and institutions have quants and pro traders? Surf says they dont use TA. Others say err they use it but not in the way retail use it. Surf says ANY form of past price analysis is TA . If an institution fades a highly cointegrated time series is that TA.
I'm pretty sure they can see the other side of the level 2 book. Buy stops above the market and sell stops below. Brokers aggregate it and Banks have brokerage arms etc.