If someone can not post the statistical analysis (the data) that produce those probabilities... The person is not a quant and the quoted probabilities is just a hunch (guess) via watching the charts without actually documenting anything statistical. Eventually if they say it enough times, write it enough times and others repeat it enough times...traders will believe its a fact when its really just a false narrative that gives an illusion. wrbtrader
LOL. I'm not surprised. I have comprehensive and detailed tables of market data which I can use to calculate statistics and check the most likely outcome on a given pattern/data sequence. The main takeaway in my own studies is that quite often when I check these statistics the actual odds/favoured outcome are different from my 'hunch'. What looks very bearish might in fact be bullish. Or even worse - it might be closer to a 50/50 proposition. And I've been watching charts for a few years myself. The fact that he's pulling these numbers out of his ass doesn't add to his credibility I'm afraid.
Learn his history, and all the collecting and categorizing, you might change your mind a bit. No I am not his student nor admirer but do respect his effort after watching many samples and some interviews.
Let me tell you something Sparky, volpri and I have disclosed methodologies with rules, entries exits and chart examples in here for years, not to show off but to pay forward as we have been helped along the way. We've all seen the likes of you, slithering by like slugs after a hard rain issuing criticisms and accusations as if you actually knew to tell your ass from a hole in the ground. If you actually want credibility, contribute something other than bullshit or stand aside with the legion of losers dragging their losing chains through ET land. Al Brooks is not the answer to life, most of us who actually trade have learned from the work and ideas of many but he knows more about price discovery than the likes of you will ever know. Why?, because your peculiar combination of arrogance and ignorance won't allow it.
I have rather strong emotions regarding Brook's style. I'll tell why.... I use no indicators, no lines, no charting software on my HDD any longer, I use freely available data on internet, I don't plot anything on any charts, charts are a minor part of how I trade- I basically only glance at them quickly. I watch the market through the day ONLY because I'm at home with nothing better to do. I could travel and trade no problem. So what I'm trying to say, trading need not be time consuming. I support myself and my wife who doesn't work paid employment, plus save money, plus donate rather decent amounts of $ to my grown kids. I live a good lifestyle and drive a gas guzzling vehicle. REALLY some people over complicate how they do things.
It's very easy to post statistical data and there's a few websites that actually do such about indicators, price patterns and such. For example @ http://thepatternsite.com/frequency.html Unfortunately, a lot of these types of sites use their own trade management rules and very little or no risk management / market context for whatever it was they were testing. Yet, it does show that statistical analysis can be used to verify the hypothesis although actual application in real trading is something completely different. Also, just as strange, you'll see people spend a lot of time & energy marking up hindsight charts about a price pattern but they too do not post any statistical data set to verify whatever probability they were talking about. The same is true in the other camp...people bashing a trade method, pattern, indicator or whatever. If someone states its does not work... They usually are not able to show the statistical analysis to support that it does not work. Lets step outside of Al Brooks and look at something that's used by some that say it works and stated by others that it does not work. Yet, rarely will you see someone post the statistical analysis data to support their comments except for a few that understand the importance of truly doing the work. A common punching bag is Japanese Candlestick Patterns These are well known patterns debated at many trading forums including here at ET but very few have shown the statistical data @ https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/de2e/08d8126492e1968e45fe5e0e6a128911633b.pdf Here's something they said that was interesting... In this work, we analyze the predictive power of the Shooting Star and Hammer patterns using over six decades of historical data of the S&P 500 index. In our studies, we found out that historically these patterns have offered little forecasting reliability when using closing prices but were highly reliable when using high price for the Shooting Star and low price for the Hammer. In their statistical study / research of two particular patterns it was unreliable but they discover something interesting. They go on to say - ...highly reliable when using high price for the Shooting Star and low price for the Hammer. Now imagine if someone comes along here at ET and starts posting hindsight mark-up charts about Shooting Stars patterns and Hammer patterns about their trade method that utilizes the high price of the Shooting Star pattern and the low price of the Hammer pattern. The same person then posts the statistical analysis data to support whatever the probability they stated. There's a little more credibility there beyond just saying that it works. Now imagine if the same person takes it a step further via also posting simulator trade performance or real money trade performance metrics via their trading Shooting Star patterns and Hammer patterns. It's an easy debate to win against those that say it does not work especially the ones that do not have any statistical data to verify that it does not work. False narratives exist on both sides of the camp and a good trader will explore both sides to determine on their own the merits of anything especially if they think it can make them money. After all the above, there's still no guarantee that a point n click trader can apply a trade method efficiently for profits especially when market conditions change. Simply, they still gotta apply risk management and use the method within the proper market context of the current market conditions. My point, those that quote probabilities should be able to post statistical analysis data, graphs or whatever instead of just words. wrbtrader