Yes, you are correct, AJ. I am basing my statements on the original rules and what is said in Covel's books. best wishes to you, surf
This is what he will never understand. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it . . . and repeat it . . . and repeat it . . . and repeat it . . . forever and ever and ever.
So there is an edge to buying lows and selling highs ? Tell the guys in the NG,Stock Index,Gold markets. Go even further and see how the shorts in AAPL,GS, and GOOG are feeling. There is a TON more money to be made catching a trend then fading them. One day you will learn Surf.
Sure it does, you just refuse to execute a test based on specific given parameters. Either that or you are physically incapable of it . . . which very well might be the case. You want to base your opinions on old worn out definitions of "trend" because you are too lazy to do anything physical on your own. It might make your wittle brain hurt.
Okay, thanks. Personally, I am not comfortable with breakouts. I favor setups of the pullback variety. I still regard them to be of a trend following nature in that I will only go long on a higher low at what I interpret to be its turn based on predefined criteria. The higher low is certainly not the only condition but it is a required one for longs, and vice versa for shorts. Whatever works, eh?
More nonsensical rhetoric from the friendly professor. now you are saying that trend following as defined in such books with that name works? earlier you clearly stated that it did not. why don't you post some of this supposed research of the perfect trading method? You are afraid to even send me the information knowing it will be ripped to shreds OR better yet post it on ET for a vetting. Otherwise its all nonsense cheap salesman vendor talk. regards, surf
Sorry, your journalistic block keeps you from comprehending the English language so I will "point and define" for you. _________________________________________________ Quote from ProfLogic: Sure it does, you just refuse to execute a test based on specific given parameters. Either that or you are physically incapable of it . . . which very well might be the case. You want to base your opinions on old worn out definitions of "trend" because you are too lazy to do anything physical on your own. It might make your wittle brain hurt. _________________________________________________ I said "you just refuse to execute a test based on specific given parameters". Those parameters are my definition. Definitions I offered to give you, gratus. I didn't said Covel's book was even close to a "how to" book on successful trading. In my opinion, it is a total misread on how natural price action is constructed and moves. I'm not vending anything. I openly offered to send you the documentation but then you turned into your typical, in my opinion, bi-polar self and I told you to shove it. Your radical mood swings and personal inconsistencies are the prime reason you aren't now getting a copy of it. Three respected individuals here on ET will be getting copies so they can offer their unbiased, untainted and most positively unmedicated opinions of it though and it doesn't matter whether they tell you are not. I gave you the opportunity to critique it and you blew it just like you have blown most of your posted trades this year. As a trader you are a failure and as a journalist you are a hack. Now, go teach grade school English somewhere and leave this industry to it's participants.