The concepts in general are discussed quite often in the books and videos. That is, TR behavior…sideways movement…overlapping…bear…bull…consecutive bull bars…consecutive bear bars…amount of bull bars in sideways movement…amount of bear bars in sideways movement…the context (BO…channel…TR)…the type of day…SPBL trend SPBR trend day…OR BO day….pressures…and gaps are discussed quite extensively. The particular application of the principles Brooks discusses may end up being proprietary. That is, he may not have discussed that exact way of employing the principles for a technique but his principles may be used in say, the devising of the technique. Brooks is more about teaching how the markets work and it’s movements with some exact techniques included to use for setups such as H1…H2…L1…L2… BO techniques…and others etc. but more important than specific techniques is he teaches a W.V. (Worldview) so to speak, of PA. Most who look at his works do not seem to discern that fact so they label him as quack? W.V. change is the only thing that will effect belief change for the long haul. Ask any anthropologist. If there is no paradigm shift in ones thinking they will be relegated to doing what they have always done, and of course, get what they have always gotten. Brooks says: “I am metaphorically teaching you how to play the violin. Everything you need to know to make a living at it is in these books, but it is up to you to spend the countless hours learning your trade (or craft).” That in parenthesis I added. If a trader does not believe what Brooks says above then there is no use studying him. It is too much work and will take too much time and practice. But if a trader does believe what Brooks says above and invests the study time, and the necessary practice, to get proficient then he will have something for life that will likely work in all market conditions.
And here is what happened. It barely made TR status with most of the sideways PA hugging near bottom then a BO south.
There is a HUGE difference between anticipating the direction of the NEXT TICK versus anticipating the direction of some time-based or otherwise monitored trend. If you want to make the argument that tick trading has trend, that it your prerogative. I agree, tick trading has trends just as intra-bar has trends. But it is simpler to extract say 8 ticks from a "trend" with a width of say 20 ticks, than it is to extract say 4 ticks from a "trend" of say 10 ticks in width. And don't forget to factor in trade-through, order-types, time of day, volume, and other IRL factors that (can/will/do) affect profitability.
In the days of old there were once upon a time garbage collectors who ran behind a truck lifting bins, they would pass the bins to another bloke who rode on the rear of the truck who would empty it. That was hard yakka lifting rubbish bins all day over your head. But I got the sense watching these guys run and lift and heave, they enjoyed the job in amongst the sheer physical exertion and stink and risk of muscle injury from the repetitiveness. Digging ditches or gardening or a roadside worker may have been easier but they chose being a garbo. Daytrading is another form of enjoyable punishment it would seem.
Drawdowns come. Scalping, day trading, swing trading, and investing. Just ask Buffet about his Dexter shoe trade. Or Victor Niederhoffer who lost it all two times I believe. Or if you could ask Livermore who went broke 4 times I think it was. Investing, nor algo trading, nor scalping, are immune to drawdowns. Neither are large accounts or small accounts. I understand about 1/2 of hedge funds fail. But to try and answer your question: If I suffer 3 or 4 trade losses in a row (which is rare for me) I will go directly to sim trading. Why? For some reason I am not in sync with the markets or PA. IT could be my mental or emotional state at the moment. Why throw good money after bad? If I can't get it straightened out on a SIM I likely will do worse with real money. I believe a scalper has to maintain a high win rate. He also has to take his losses when his premise for taking the scalp is no longer valid. In particular if I make a losing trade my mental goal is to recuperate that loss, and some, over the next two trades. The way I do this is by selecting a new trade, then doubling up or tripling up my position size, and then going in the market direction that first handed me the loss. If, I think, there is movement in that direction, that yet to come. If not, then I will wait for another trade in either direction. That basically means if I am right, then in 1/3 to 1/2 of the movement distance (that caused the loss for me) I will be back at BE and likely more. This is not for myself revenge trading, rather it is a process that I follow to get back my loss. Some would call it revenge trading but it is not an emotional decision for me, but a logical decision based upon a calculation. That being that I will likely get the movement I need to get me back into profit or at least at BE. If I get whipsawed out on my doubled up position I will resort back to SIM again. Then I will give it another shot doubled or tripled up. If it works I will likely repeat it again. That will usually get me back. If on the second try I get whipsawed again I will likely quit for the day and go do something else. My brain just is not working correctly. I am making wrong judgements. I had a case today. It may make the concepts clearer. I was ahead with profit bagged. We got a little sideways movement on the 5m MES chart. I decided to short about the middle of it. First red triangle on the left. Then I added more (second red triangle above it) Then I added a third time (red triangle on the next bar. Guess what? Price kept going up. We now had 3 consecutive bull bars. On the 4th bar I decided I am wrong so I dumped the entire position (first green triangle left to right). It kept going up so on the next bar I decided I needed to double up and get back my loss. That would be the second green triangle from left to right. I exit that double up position on the next bar (red triangle). Then I went long again just above that exit (doubled up again) and then exited that second doubled up position on that upper red triangle on the next bar and final bar that shows exits and entries. Finally, on that same last bar as price dropped some I went long again but at my original size I had when lost, some bars back. I then exited that same size on the same bar at the lower red triangle on the last bar on my chart that has entries and exits. In essence, to get back my loss and back into profit, I double up my losing position size TWICE and took a third trade at the same losing position size. So, three winners in a row and by the time the dust settled I not only got back my loss but made a handsome profit. All this over six 5m bars. That is how I get back losses. It is not easy to do psychologically but I look at it as a process with executions that will get me back from what a lapse in judgement cost me, or just what the market just simply threw at me. I cannot focus on the money. I have to focus on the process and execution. That gets me out of the scenario you describe of needing to get 8 wins to get out of the hole. I have explained this process before in my journal. You may want to review. BTY even after my loss I was still holding a profit from my earlier trades on the day, when I started the recuperating trades.
You are hilarious! Some of us like the challenge of intraday trading and had rather sleep at night than worry about umpteen investments in stocks that may gap down over night. We know exactly how we stand at the session close.
Some on here on this thread ought to read your post. REALLY well. You sound like you know something about Brooks way of looking at the markets.
I attempt to be entertaining. But volpri (and speedo who is your twin) I agree about how you prefer to trade. If we stand on a busy street corner and observe, we see everyone wearing different clothes. It's only in the military where conformity is expected that people wear a 'uniform'.