This is honestly a weird policy, cause it filters out members who are successful in their trading businesses and leaves full freedom of talk to those who are not (and thus have nothing to mention)... there's quite a difference between mentioning something and soliciting something. For example, Xspurt AFAIK doesn't take any "students" to mentor even now, after being banned from ET, simply because it's not interesting to him anymore. Why was he banned... I still wonder. As for discussion of methods, I will discuss them and do discuss them in relation to longer-term calls here in this thread (explained in details last YM short call as an example).
Thanks. No problem for me and I'll refrain from that in future. Just wanted to emphasize that there are independent people who can confirm every claim I post here on ET.
You've now changed the objective of your other thread. You did originally state that you will prove in your other thread via your performance record that TA works. Instead, you're using this thread that's not about "simple TA" methods, not discussions about any methods to post once in awhile another type of performance record that's hypothetical and still without any simple TA methods. Did I miss something because it seems you're only discussing trades in this thread that are mentioned amongst all the debates that have nothing to do with the trades in the other thread but still no TA details about the trades here and over there.
I clearly claimed in that thread that only simple TA is used. Performance record shows results of that. So it's the proof (or disproof) of that approach working. Never said I'm going to share exactly nuances of TA approach used. For that different purpose, this thread was started.
Actually, that's not correct. Also, I and others never request specific details nor exact nuances. In contrast, I'm specifically mentioning that their are other threads where the performance record and the general ideas of the TA involving the performance record are discussed in the exact same thread. I mention such to you before in your performance thread. In addition, you IMPLIED in your performance thread you'll explain the objective TA in another thread (I suspected you were thinking about this thread) to correlate to your performance thread without posting a link to this thread. You then responded (after my questioning) via posting hypothetical trades (a few times) in this thread and if I'm wrong...you also said the hypothetical trades in this thread are not related to the real money trades in your other performance thread. Thus, maybe I made a mistake in assuming you're using the same simple TA method in this thread involving hypothetical swing trades versus the day trading in your other performance thread. By the way, this is the nearest example of a TA explanation in this thread via the below quote. Is that the same TA method your using in your real money TA performance thread. The only thing you've done is to create a thread that allows you to say its different TA I don't use which is why I'm making hypothetical signal calls in this thread How does it prove that objective TA works ??? That's why I will continue to say, maybe your goal (you didn't initially realize it) was to prove that you're a profitable trader but you got confused via getting caught up in the TA debates with surf and thought you could do both (prove your profitable and prove TA works).
You and I both know there's only one way to prove that TA works if you're intentions is to really do such in an objective manner via revealing the in-depth details of your entire trading plan under scrutiny of those you're debating with...you'll never do such in an objective manner as you've have now gone on record via saying the following quote... Never said I'm going to share exactly nuances of TA approach used. That's my point with the scrutiny in the other thread (your real money day trading performance record) and now in this thread of primary debates and hypothetical swing trades. You can not prove to surf that you're using TA profitably because to do such implies those you're debating with have access to the TA that correlates to the performance record. You'll never (your words above) going to give the proof to surf that TA works. In contrast, you will or will not show that you're a profitable trader. If that doesn't work for surf...your clients can then show up in this thread and correct (verify) that TA works which will prove to surf you had another agenda under the facade of objective TA. WOW.
I fail to see how short term trading is anything but TA. Alternative is to generate signals based on news, like data xxx is strong therefore buy, which is not working. So anything that cornix shows is TA. What else can possibly be ?
Wrbtrader, I honestly don't get your disappointment. Yes I don't share exactly the TA ideas behind performance. But I clearly claimed from the start I only use TA. Not that I'm going to explain how exactly. Of course it may happen so that people don't believe me and prefer to think I use crystal ball to trade. But exactly the same could happen if I shared ideas, because what if they are not exactly the basis of my trades? What if I say I use this or that TA pattern, but use a secret algo instead? I prefer to progress gradually. So far there are only 15 or so trades, so it's not even worth attention. When there will be significant sample size, I will think about the next step. So far it stays as it is.
cornix, Maybe I'm not clear and I will post below your opening statement form your performance thread. Further, you have stated in this thread and in other threads before your performance record thread about yourself and in agreements with others (e.g. NoDoji)...you only use TA. Your TA is objective...there's not subjectivity. Can't you see to contradiction in your belief versus your opening statement above. But I clearly claimed from the start I only use TA. By the way, I've already establish to you in earlier conversation that you can not make the claim that you're only using TA because that's in contradictory of your opening statement of your performance thread via using "microscopic fundamentals", "news" along with the fact you mentioned in another thread you use other trading tools "besides" just TA without going into any details about what those other tools are. That's my argument and the argument of surf. You can not prove that TA works under the facade its the only thing you're using when in fact the TA you're using is amongst other tools in your trading plan. Hopefully you now understand my disappointment when you started that other thread without proving in the other thread and now admitting you'll NEVER disclose the simple TA for proof after saying you'll bring objectivity to the continuous war of these TA debates...you have failed to do such. Yet, you may succeed in proving you're a profitable trader and you'll succeed in continuing the TA debate. Don't misunderstand...there's nothing wrong with having a TA chapter in your book that has many other chapters. What's wrong is that you continue IMPLYING its the only chapter in your trading plan and because of such you can prove that TA works. The fact is that you're a discretionary trader even though you can't use those words about yourself as if its in contradiction of the "objective TA" claim. This is similar to NoDoji's claim that she does NOT use any indicators via the claim she only uses pure price action while at the same time saying she uses price moving averages along with showing price moving averages on many of her charts. Her defense statement...those are not technical indicators. You guys and gals walk around ET using the words like "only", "pure" very carelessly and then you get into debates with folks like surf that replies via saying "prove it". P.S. I do think you have a sincere interest in trying to prove that TA works but the way you're trying to do it is NOT objective.