Oh good, you have charts further back than me. On trades that trigger, take a .24 target, a .12 stop, and exit b/e if price retraces to entry after >.10 in your favor.
Surfy, I'm glad you enjoyed reading about my personal issue. Just leave me out of the TA/not TA debate. For me, trading without charts is like walking in complete darkness. I may be able to feel my way along, but I would rather see what's coming up ahead. Is using charts TA or not TA according to someone's definition? I don't know and I don't care. I'm a trade and let trade kind of guy.
There certainly is a disconnect with reality somewhere here. I think the king has no clothes for here's the proof of the pudding: 3 rising wedges repeating (And I have posted and called many, many more on ET in advance). 3 doji all giving strong reversal signals because of correct placement. It was one of these that made me so sure your YM trade was in the wrong direction and something much bigger was afoot. However I agree on a disconnect somewhere and it happens when so many folks with a tiny wee little bit of TA think that their failure is evidence that TA doesn't work so they conduct tests that are frankly laughable in naivety. I can't think of any other sphere in life where the tools are blamed for bad workmanship and those who know least... It looks simple and there's the rub!
Ok, RESULTS UPDATE: Of 30 trading days (Sep 12 to Oct 23) there were 16 on which a trade triggered. Using the above rules we have: 4 winners of .24 = .96 ($960) 5 breakeven = 0 7 losses of .12 = -.84 (-$840) assuming no slippage that gives .12 profit = $120 per contract for commissions I assume $5 RT * 16 trades = $80 So $40 profit per contract theoretical result. I don't know about slippage and spread...... For my experiment if the high of the opening bar is 86.90 and a long entry triggers I assume a fill at 86.91 which may or may not be realistic. In any event it is at least profitable on paper. On days 31 and 32 a trade triggered each day, giving a .24 winner and a .12 loser. So that would have boosted the stats. maybe Oiler can make this into an EA...........
I do my best to be the "house" when it comes to trading my plan. Today during the Nymex pit hours, the market offered 25 setups that fit the criteria of my trading plan and I traded 20 of them. Had a 90-min break in the middle, so didn't catch everything, but the first 2-3 hours is most important to me. When I look at the most profitable of these trades, the ones that were far better than my minimum scalping profit, they were the ones that were most difficult to take, because the way I enter these setups "feels" is very counter-intuitive. That's why picking and choosing trades from among all the valid setups presented to you is more like gambling than trading as a business, IMHO. We have a tendency to choose the ones that "feel" easy, but the market rewards that which is difficult.
My experience clearly shows such recurring patterns do exist. So why should we trust tests which failed to spot them when the reality of trading provides objective evidence of the contrary?
There is nothing unusual with clever people building a doctrine on flawed scientific studies. It happens all the time and these anti TA scientists would try to convince you a racehorse would be better if it had 3 legs. Someone with sound TA knowledge soon sees the flaws while the gullible think they can do back tests on 6500 signals and prove none of them work consistently. The reality is the best TA practitioners in the world would be unlikely to be able to test 65 signals to their satisfaction in a lifetime of study because of the complexity involved, yet a young buck with a degree and a PC is ready to tell the world how knowledgeable he is. I have a doctor friend who showed me how these studies are carried out and the level of incompetence is frightening. TA studies are no different. http://www.tbyil.com/Flawed_Fraudulent_Medical_Studies.htm