Those counter trend moves fighting the bulls and bears , are statistically are the most unprofitable trades.I could show you 10 years of back testing to prove your ignorance.You are losing gambler. Trade like a mercenary guerrilla. We must fight on the winning side and be willing to change sides readily when one side has gained the upper hand. In bull markets we can only be long or neutral, and in bear markets we can only be short or neutral. That may seem self-evident; it is not, and it is a lesson learned too late by far too many. "Markets can remain illogical longer than you or I can remain solvent," according to our good friend, Dr. A. Gary Shilling. Illogic often reigns and markets are enormously inefficient despite what the academics believe. Sell markets that show the greatest weakness, and buy those that show the greatest strength. Metaphorically, when bearish, throw your rocks into the wettest paper sack, for they break most readily. In bull markets, we need to ride upon the strongest winds... they shall carry us higher than shall lesser ones. http://www.dacharts.com/articles/_22ru**********.htm
Great! Really, really exciting to learn this and not be ignorant any longer. Now show us all on ET the SPECIFIC, EXACT set up you back tested and the results of that back test. WARNING: GIGO ALERT! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out
Do what you say. I want to see how you tested a falling knife set up and the results. Telling us... "It was testing just testing for net pips profitability , standard mm , 44 different signals." is pure gambling with EA's. Now show us the EXACT set-up, context and background inputs and the back test results for a falling knife trade as you said you would. I can't wait to be corrected by an EA guru. This is why I told you that horse racing and not trading is where you should put your efforts. It is much more suited to EA's. We await your results with baited breath.
Still waiting Garbage in, garbage out (abbreviated to GIGO, possibly intended to parallel the phrase first-in, first-out) is a phrase in the field of computer science or information and communication technology. It is used primarily to call attention to the fact that computers will unquestioningly process the most nonsensical of input data ("garbage in") and produce nonsensical output ("garbage out"). It was most popular in the early days of computing, but applies even more today, when powerful computers can spew out mountains of erroneous information in a short time. The first use of the term has been dated to a 1 April 1963 syndicated newspaper article about the first stages of computerization of the US Internal Revenue Service.[1] The term was brought to prominence as a teaching mantra by George Fuechsel,[2] an IBM 305 RAMAC technician/instructor in New York. Early programmers were required to test virtually each program step and cautioned not to expect that the resulting program would "do the right thing" when given imperfect input. The underlying principle was noted by the inventor of the first programmable computing device design: On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. âCharles Babbage, Passages from the Life of a Philosopher[3] It is also commonly used to describe failures in human decision-making due to faulty, incomplete, or imprecise data. "It was testing just testing for net pips profitability , standard mm , 44 different signals."
Is this what this whole thread is based on? This is your TA knowledge? You've spent 9 years on this and now you're on the run when it comes to one set up.... https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sug...pw.r_qf.&fp=a779429bbfa0f72f&biw=1680&bih=918 OILFXPRO D T S S 150 Pips per day/40,000 pips per annum Oilfxpro 100 % profitable martingale breakout system API
Hey, wait a minute! Technical analysis tells us this! You trade on the winning team. The way you know it's the winning team is when a technical analysis of past price action shows you "loud and clear" who's winning. There's no way someone looking at fundamentals would buy AMZN when it had risen to a P/E of 300 and sell CLF when it had fallen to a P/E of 4. Clearly the institutional money was buying strength (AMZN) and selling weakness (CLF) based on technical price patterns. Both trades resulted in 5% and 20% gains, respectively, in less than a month. Pray tell, Brother OFX, how do you determine where to buy strength and sell weakness? Some of the retraces in a trend can be brutal if your timing's off.