It sounds like your take is accurate, and I think that behavior is what his research and his firm's profitable trading take advantage of. I also think people might disagree that the "everything is random" conclusion is fully justified by being able to exploit that particular behavior though.
If it isn't a stock chart it's either generated by biased instructions that tend to compromise the effects of whatever randomness was built into the generator or it was picked from a large number of RW charts because it resembles a stock chart. My guess is that it's an RW; the back-and-fills are too consistent.
I see several pin bars before intermediate corrections and that prompts me to say this is a chart of a real instruments. possibly some forex pair. In this thinking of mine, there is also the possibility of asserting the consequence in non random -> patterns and by seeing patterns asserting that this is a real non random asset, however, just to prevent the objection, a non randomist works with an equivalence, not an implication, non randon = patterns Thus, the more repeatable patterns I can find in data, the less random they are. I think this is a reasonable position. It says that the lower the complexity of the data, the lower the randomness.
How random is the same specific daily 2 bar pattern showing in: 8/30/11 Russell 2000, SPX, Dow, NDX 8/31/11 again SPX, Dow, NDX 9/1/11 Hang Seng, FTSE100, CAC40, IBEX, ISEQ all saying one thing - sell. It doesn't happen all the time but when it does there ain't no randomness about it.
I'm sorry, I meant my post as a question. Paraphrasing the discussion points up to now, I'm trying to guess what comes next, which led me to this question. Could you expand on your response or viewpoint a bit more, or the inaccuracies? I'd be happy to consider it, but it would be great if you could expand on it a bit more -- I have no beliefs or assumptions or foundation, so I'm kind of dumb, I have to hear, test and verify everything from the ground up. For now, I am sticking with my question as I phrased it: "Everything is random. The random parts interact and then influence each other. Then they spontaneously synchronize from that interaction to move in one direction over time. But synchronized movement over time would be a stable, somewhat predictable move, or possibly the concept of a "trend". But I don't know, maybe this process or contradiction is what we're looking for."