Yes, that is unfortunate. However, the mechanism is there for those who can and wish to operate it properly. On the other hand, laissez-faire doesn't even work in theory, because as Galbraith observed, "Left to themselves, economic forces do not work out for the best except perhaps, for the powerful." I'm inclined to agree with Galbraith that the Invisible Hand is so invisible because, quite often, it's just not there. Bush's record speaks for itself insofar as the Invisible Hand goes. And I trust we at least agree that supply-side trickle-down is just self-serving BS. Even bubbleboy Greenspan admitted that tax cuts don't pay for themselves.
I more or less agree... in fact, most of the 'isms' and 'ologies' are too pure for this world it seems. The hazards of trying to pigeonhole a messy and complex reality. Ever read 'Origin of Wealth' by Beinhocker? He does a good job of pegging where we are headed (or should be headed anyway)... towards a world free of ideological orthodoxy. p.s. I didn't know you could post youtube clips in here, how did you do that?
Your argument that follows makes sense. I cannot dispute its validity, but I have chosen a different course for myself. In my own case, I found that I was able to identify much more reliable setups in a very short time frame than in a much longer one, "noise" and all that notwithstanding. I would prefer to look at a longer term chart and identify a low-risk point of entry, but I simply cannot do it. On a very short term chart, I can do it quite handily. Unfortunately, it is more screen intensive but that is my burden to bear. The other thing is that I am an atheist. As such, I'm not that big on leaps of faith. I consider fairly wide protective stops to be an article of faith, irrespective of the testing or reasoning that may or may not have gone into such stop placement. Therefore, I prefer small steps rather than leaps. However much we may wish to believe that it's a matter of probability, the fact is there is no probability distribution for future price action. There is only uncertainty and, at best, a balance of probability, which is a far less elegant measure of confidence. And so, I prefer an approach characterized by incrementalism. At the end of the day, we each do our own cost/benefit analysis and arrive at a conclusion that gives us the most comfort. As you correctly pointed out:
On the Youtube page below the video, you will see an "Embed" button. Click on it and then copy the highlighted text. Then simply paste it in your post.
Elegantly stated, although a wee bit specious. Regardless of time frame and philosophy, the true "articles of faith" are that (1) the chosen methodology works, (2) the trader has a sustainable edge, and (3) the light is worth the candle. All traders have "faith" in respect to these three things, even if the faith is only in ourselves. (As for disputing probability distributions, that is a good way to start a long and most likely fruitless debate, with patterns of conceptual disconnect akin to the parable of blind men and elephant.) There are many paths up the profit mountain, the three uniting factors being internal consistency, empirical validity, and practical longevity. Without those uniting factors in play, the width of the stop (or even a lack of stops entirely) matters not a whit...