I don't need to prove anything to anyone. That's never been my goal. Simplicity works precisely because of people like you who do not believe that. That's a pure contrarian argument because people like you constitute the majority on this board. I am very happy that this is the case. If you want to believe that it does not work let it be. I believe it works and it does for me. Posting journals is good for those who seek a feedback. I don't need anybody's feedback. For God's sake that's the last thing I need from you people. A feedback from the people who would like to convince me that my systems do not work because they are so simple?!!! You are kidding, right? As far as Fib trades are concerned, let me follow the Lundy's path and admit here that there are no Fibbonacci numbers at all, that I invented them to deceive this board in order to sell them to the public as the brightest on this board have rightly been suspecting for some time. And I beg your forgiveness for that. More seriously, I do not think that the time has yet come for me to post anything more about the Fib trades I suggested within some simple framework because I would have to explain too many simple things. I have no time for that and I do not care if you believe me or not. In fact, today you could have benefitted from yet another trade of this kind, but as you see I have not posted about it at all and will not post about it anymore. It would be a complete waste of my time. When a student is ready a teacher appears. This time has yet to come, and I really do not care if it will ever come. A lot of people on this board expect to be spoonfed. I have always been self-taught and I guess that's why I am different and that's why I find things to be simpler than most do. I will still keep posting about the simplicity the same way you post about your disbelief that it works. As far as the real proof is concerned, only those who get the simplest of my systems will see it. I have no time to bother with any other proofs because again I do not care whether you believe me or not. In fact, the less you believe me, the better, I think, it works.
Where did you get the notion that I do not believe that simplicity works? I use both complex and simple methodologies. Perhaps you misunderdood my suggestion. I wasn't challenging your claims, only suggesting how you can make a more convincing argument of your claims. BTW, I am well versed in Fib from Joe Dinapoli. Like I said, I was simply making a suggestion, but you are taking quite a bit of offense to it.
A simple system in trading is not a goal by itself except if you are lazy . It has to do with robustness of the system. It's like Ocam Razor rule in Science. Keeping it simple means concretly that you have a minimum of independant variables so that you would not be able to do curve fitting easily, so it is a kind of quality assurance in designing your system. Another robustness criteria is to see if system need reoptimisation. Many systems based on neural analysis do that: it doesn't mean they are worthless, it means you are not sure that their performance will be regular since you always reoptimise them.
If you don't want to give details, then it's impossible to look at an answer on the design level. So we can just look at the statistical level. But the datas you give are not detailed enough: it would be better to give al the results trade by trade and in the time sequence they were executed. How was the datas sampled for example ? After that you could study their probability distribution curve.
When someone does not want to give us a reason for an entry....it makes me think that he does not know what he is doing. And will eventually fail. And giving away a reason, does not make you lose the edge. I do not think anyone here trades enough size to move a market!
Ok, I must ask why this is the case? It seems that everyone has this opinion - if more people knew my rules it would no longer work; Why is that? Seems to me that if everyone looked at my system saw what I saw and jumped on board it would move it my direction, no? Make 'em pretty, Chris
You do not think anyone here can move a market? Think again. You are posting strategies that may or may not work, but there are always script kiddies that will trash your entry system by trying it and the more people who try your system, the more likely it is to fail over time. It's not a matter of one person moving the market, it's a matter of many people doing it your way. I would never post my entry strategy on a board; 1) It's useless to post it, except if it's for a pure altruistic reason, traders who are not not retired should not give up their system even though it might be as simple as a Fibo indicator. 2) It might challenge your confidence when actual trading is conducted because you feel like your system is exposed. It's sad but true, traders are magicians, and magicians don't give up their tricks. However, there are many other things that a trader can share, money management, how to find a proper system, statistical testing and so forth... Don't take offense, but I think he is completely right in not divulging his system.
DblArrow: You wouldn't get filled because the market would move away from you, slippage would increase and your system would erode slowly but surely. Simple dynamics of the market...
I will give a rational explanation, which is in fact based on my model. My model takes activity into account. Activity is related to time and volume. Each activity consume time or volume so that price will move. So if two many people wants the same level of price well there won't be enough activity available to fulffil everybody. That will create slippage and liquidity at this price level. It will not be very sensitive at the swing level but at the scalp level you will feel the difference.