Whether you refer to chart patterns, etc. Lets take Head & Shoulders, Double-Bottom, whatever. People attribute their success to these patterns or whatever edge they believe they have. When in reality, buying and selling randomly should produce positive expectancy (since the market has a positive bias), and really the edge likes in risk/reward. Ie ppl are trading with 3:1 or better odds. I guess the question is I would like to have ppl who believe they have an edge to place trades randomly (on paper) side-by-side with their actual trading (with similar risk/reward profiles). I wonder if there would be a statistical difference over time? It seems to be that the real edge is the risk reward, and ppl attribute the success to other things. I say this because ppl are always referring to money management, etc. If you had an edge wouldn't money management not be as important? (I agree you have to handle string of losers, etc) but with good risk reward and low risk per positions, I think random entry/exit would perform (ie the random times could be determined ahead of time to make sure they are random or by rolling a die to determine exit day/hour etc). The more I read the more I'm convinced ppl are attributing their success to the wrong thing. It may just be random (their edge, no edge at all) and they are benefiting from the market bias (would I guess could be an edge) and good risk reward. We see this when ppl can recall when the pattern works and therefore confirm this belief. But testing by many ppl shows MANY patterns have no valid edge. (not all). I find it interesting that after its all said and done its really random entry/exit that is happening; I could even argue because well known patterns are "known" they actual HURT performance -- random entry/exit would be better. I will post some research demonstrating this shortly. Thoughts?