Why you folks just will not admit that your TA is very subjective and can't be tested is beyond my understanding.
TA includes both objective and subjective elements. Large % of successful setup must be objective, otherwise it's blind gambling and not trading. But some element of subjective exists too of course. Subjective in my opinion is just more inputs than we can currently define. So still objective, just not consciously structured yet.
ok, so you admit that it cant be defined or tested--- what you said previously was just hyperbole? I agree with you then. surf
First you have to define what a TA "chart pattern" is. What I consider a pattern, you may consider complete noise and vice versa. I can absolutely quantify the patterns I use. I look at several time frame pairs and use the data that built each bar (OHLC plus a couple other metrics). When one of the pairs aligns according to my criteria, I get into the trade. I agree you cant just look at a chart and expect to be able to quantify your trades, but if you look at the data (being visually represented via a chart) then that's a whole different ball game. My approach uses that data and every entry and exit is 100% quantifiable and objective. No gun slinging here
Not at all. I would say it can be defined and tested to the degree of consistent profitability, subjective element just adds an extra edge and probably can't be defined (yet) due to complexity of data inputs.
Plus about 340 here on the YM march contract--- all signals are screaming bullish still--- looking for 1000 points on this trade. Capital drives the market, not sentiment, not the herd, not you or i, learning the signs that literally force capital into the market, as they are setting up, is the holy grail-- these signs are the Price Drivers. Don't make your broker rich by staring at charts with tight stops-- learn how the market really works then identify, quantify, exploit. surf