Ok. One more time-- your reasoning is circular. There is no edge to what you are saying-- pattern forms or pattern fails-- random entry profits or it does not. Patterns are irrelevant. They offer the delusion of prediction only in hindsight. Ok, back on ignore. Please don't post On my thread any more.
im not saying there is an inherent edge in THIS particular pattern as described in my example, i'm refuting what you said about ta patterns. you said they cannot fail by definition and i just provided an example of one that could. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3622914&highlight=ta+patterns#post3622914 "The pattern would not, could not exist if it failed. Therein lays the one of the logical flaws of your thinking and the other TA proponents. The only patterns that you can see are completed patterns--therefore everyone one has "worked". surf"
Sounds like my old neogann channel. That can work, but one needs to realize that the channel can be drawn randomly on the chart and it will have the same success as Gann numbers or other TA ways to determine the levels. This is how I discovered just how ridiculous TA really is when I started randomly plotting the channel. Surf
We are doubling down on the long here at 13320. Man, this is going rock, if our forecast pans out. surf
Well, if it has the same success, it just shows that the Gann numbers are worthless. If it works, why use the Gann numbers if random channels give the same results and if it doesn't work, well, then it is worthless anyway. But, just because random channels can have positive expectancy it doesn't mean it is a bad idea. After all, it is not the entry, but the exit what determines the outcome...