Yeah, that would be a plus. But I wouldn't say that they're otherwise "useless." Watching someone 'win' is interesting in and of itself. Like watching Evel Knievel make the jump--for an off-the-cuff example. "Useless," but enjoyable, none-the-less...for me, at least. Technically, most forms of entertainment are "useless."
The test of a trader is performance. The test of a teacher is explanation. A trader can still be phenomenal...even if s/he doesn't explain anything to anyone. I guess it matters what you're looking for: a good show, or a good teacher. ________________ "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach"
Clearly. Indeed ... unfortunately, a couple of people chose (in one case perhaps even unintentionally) to challenge word-usage pretty early on in the thread. That made an otherwise most promising and interesting thread get off to a disappointing start, from which (at ET) it's often quite hard to recover - though this one's managing, now.
I tend to look at it in terms of surprise. But it seems to work better when you have an obvious pattern which just got violated. If I have to start doing mental gymnastics to see it, it isn't there. Usually I'm looking at chop. That's the normal state of things anyway. I love disappointment, when something breaks that was working according to the plan, usually trend. Or a piece of news that's unexpected. In order to play a pattern break, you have to know the pattern everyone was trading that was working. Best recent example would be usdjpy Thursday night/Friday morning. That took a long, long time to develop. Weeks in some sense.
Nine additional parameters is way too many. But , heh, knock yourself out. Good setups are simple. It's the people using them that are complicated.
I think you are referring to the 9 that I mentioned in my original post. Sorry, that wasn't clear. There were only 2 that could have been applied to the situation that he presented, not 9. I just showed him 7 additional ones that he may, or may not, find for consideration in similar situations. So, of the 9, in any given similar situation, you would normally have no more that 1 or 2 to consider, and those 9 include both positive and negative ones. Actually, I have over 20 that I use. But, of course, usually only a very few of the 20+ could be applied to a given situation. True, as you said, the setup itself is fairly simple(once you learn to read price movement). But, the point I tried to make to him was that focusing 100% on the setup without giving due consideration to the surrounding context would have a negative impact on his overall performance.
This doesn't add up. Your use of English and grammar is extremely good so I think you are being untruthful.