In prior posts you said this: Given that you have these erroneous beliefs--the book is a very good fit for you.
Yes, its quite humourous seeing these blustery no name aliases asserting fact in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I guess there will always be those who "see things their own way, without regard to reality," no matter how much effort and evidence is presented. It's how guys like this get a foothold in their psyches--- just insert some trading buzz words... <iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qSsXumQJtCs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I was not aware that trend trading was strictly and singularly defined by an oversight committee serving as final arbiter. Apparently, I was under the mistaken impression that we could all define trend in our own way and then trade it in a manner of our choosing.
No, definitions are definitions. IF you choose to trade another way ( hopefully you do ) that's a good thing-- but its not Trend Following as defined by the numerous billion dollar hedge fund managers who are Trend Followers. B free to trade your way, just DO NOT call it something it is not. You can be a Trend Trader, a Trend Anticipator ( me ) or a Trend Follower ( Covel )-- and likely additional permutations of the same----- surf
What is humorous is that you don't believe the subjective "trend following" method, as Mr. Covel portrays and sell it, offers a viable edge but you do not think of him as "crazy nor do you attack him as you do every other "trendy" on this site. But you believe that the elementary objective buying of a pull back low after a chart has made a new high or the objective selling of a pull back high after a chart has made a new low IS crazy. Not only crazy buts lacks a grasp of reality that only you possess. Another thing humorous is that every time a question is asked that you personally can't answer, you attack, even when it isn't directed at you. Get a life.
Look in the dictionary and you will see numerious definitions of "Trend". You are an idiot. "You can fix ignorant but you can't fix stupid"
You seem to be blissfully unaware that the name trend following predates Covel's book by some years. He doesn't get to "own" it just because he used it as a book title.