Unfortunately, there is no other way but hard work, dedication, and practice. Around 1500 pages in the trilogy depending if you are examining the hardbacks or digital versions. I have written in the first page of my hardback Brooks book on "Trends" (of the trilogy) "Nov 27, 2011." So you can get an idea how long I have been at it. Prior to that date I had bought and studied his first book "Reading Price Charts Bar by Bar: The Technical Analysis of Price Action for the Serious Trader". That first book was a humdinger of a book and sounded like a Pub Crawl by the title. LOL. SUBSEQUENTLY to those books I bought the second and third books of the trilogy. Plus i bought and studied the videos. I have the trilogy in hardback and also purchased the digital version of each book so i can study and make notes and don't have to haul the monster hardbacks around, as I travel alot. Plus i can digitally call up my notes. Bottom line; they are works to be studied and annotated, not read casually. University level stuff on PA. To understand it requieres studying each page and making notes and thinking through the concepts. It is not for the weak minded, roaming mind, or lazy brain. ROFLMAO You will have hundreds of pages of notes when finished studying each book. Then you gotta practice all that on a Sim before going live. There is a best taxonomy to approach the works (IMO) that may help one getting to practice sooner. Here is a sample text out of one of the books so you may see what I mean: "If that bear breakout has follow-through for a few bars and then there is a strong bull reversal, this could set up a failed breakout and a possible low of the day. If the rally lasts only a bar or two and then there is another strong bear trend bar, the failed breakout might be failing. If so, shorting below that bear bar is a breakout pullback entry" - "Trading Price Action Reversals: Technical Analysis of Price Charts Bar by Bar for the Serious Trader" by Al Brooks Expressed Brooks style with abrev it renders: An opening BO that fails and becomes a FBO and that FBO fails and becomes a FBO F then the FBO BECOMES simply a PB in opening BO, therefore becoming a BO PB entry. Therefore, any brave soul contemplating learning trading "a la mode" Brooks style best make haste and get started for it is a road of many years. If one waits too long before starting ones brain can get fossilized. The good thing about it is: IMO you do not need, nor will need, anything else ...at least in our lifetime. NOTHING ABOVE IS ADVICE. JUST AN OPINION. YOU ARE FREE TO TOSS IT IN THE TRASH CAN IF YOU LIKE. IT IS ONLY FOR INFORMATION AND SIMPLY MY POINT OF VIEW ON THE MATTER. A POTENTIAL AFICIONADO MAY FIRST JUST WANT TO BUY 1 BOOK AND WATCH SOME OF THE FREE YOUTUBE VIDEOS OUT THERE TO SEE IF IT FITS THEM. IT CERTAINLY IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY! Good luck! I'm out of here. Got some work to do then gotta study some more on trading "Brooks style" It is saturday you know. Hope i answered the OP POSTS and Algo's post in clear enough terms.
How are you defining quantitative basis? Does your definition (u do have a definition don't u?) include counting the number of times an event occurs, ie totaling cumulative quantities? Can u be more specific? Quote something Brooks has said, in 1 of his books, that (in your opinion) fails to satisfy the requirements of Quantitative Analysis? something that unequivocally disqualifies Brooks from being a master of QA? Is there anything at all (brooks has written) that can prove your opinion is reasonable and based on fact? Is Brooks really operating outside the boundaries of Quantitative Analysis? So far all you've offered is your opinion, without anything to back it up. Is it common for you to express strong opinions, without offering any basis to indicate you formed your opinion based on an examination of the facts available? Are you a generally speaking, a reasonable person? Do you think a reasonable person places any weight on your opinions ...given the facts thus far in evidence? Are u going to provide evidence that you, your life, and your opinions are grounded in reality?
One idea presented by Al is that if the market is in a strong uptrend as defined by xx consecutive bars all having lows above an xx period moving average, and then the market pulls back to the xx period MA, there is at least a 60% chance that the market will get a bounce back in the direction of the original trend rather than continuing lower...well I've backtested this concept on multiple instruments using various timeframe/MA period/entry-stop loss-profit target combos and have found there absolutely is validity in the concept, and that it is possible to structure profitable trades off of it. So at least in this case you are wrong.
After calibrating the bar interval, and the technique or method to a fixed set of parameters, and it regularly locates other algos that are generally speaking "present" and active. When that setup isn't working it's because the algos (whose presence is required) have a bit that for whatever reasons is currently set to off if it's a binary on off condition, or .. in the case of more complexity the exact same algo is still active but (for whatever reasons) it's operating (same as always) in another location within different limits, whether it be via a change in the bar interval or otherwise adjusting a constraint within one of the other parameters
No wonder you having a hard time. Trying to quantify horse shit. If fresh it just slides thru your fingers. Very slippery stuff which apparently you have tried and failed??? You must let the sun bake it first. Much easier to quantify then. But since you are.... nomad...always on the move you miss out on the good patties...those horse patties dry up nicely but since you aren't around but off roaming the arctic circle the rain comes and dissolves the horse shit leaving the bank account ..well....shitless!
You're a funny guy volpri. I stand firm on my opinion, but forgot to add overcomplicated before horseshit.
LOL ADDING overcomplicated really does complicate matters. That means horse diarrhea. BIG..BIG..trouble quantifying.