Lets be adult. When I say patterns are defined; they are. The prima facia reason that they aredefined is that I DEFINE THEM mathematically. You may not have taken the time to do this. When I read papaers by others, I check to see if they have done the defining required as a beginning premise. In the financial industry, nothing counts towards the bottom line unless it meets the standard of excellence callede "making money". When that test is met, then the results of making money are there to see by tthose who have colleagual relationships where the "rubber meets the road" is understood. Patterns are all defined mathematically as a starting point. Doing stats on price movement is an exercise in statisitics and has nothing to do with pattern analysis. I do not expect you to understand anything that I am posting. Just do not worry about it.
I wonder if anyone who has found a t.a. pattern that "works" has ever looked for an occurence of the same pattern where it didn't "work."
ha, funny! being that the patterns ONLY exist in the past, and wouldn't exist if they didn't "work" thats a tall order. for instance, it wouldn't be a head and shoulders top, if it wasn't a top.... best, surf
How about defining your P/L mathematically? Because so far the extent of your on record trading is a 26% loss in a trading contest Poor math
Oh sure..."Market neutral" is still in vogue,though this latest "correction" shed some light on the true risk. I think you may be correct that the supposed pure stat arb boys may be tilting their baskets by as much as 30%...Just a hunch...