There is a logical rule called modus ponens (I don't know why it is called this) which is something like this: P implies Q, since P is true Q must also be true. So if you have the statement P = "this rule is profitable" and Q = "the author no longer needs to sell EAs" then in this case P does not imply Q.

I suppose you can also apply some conditional probability to prove that the rule is not profitable: P(A|B) = P(A and B)/P(B) Which roughly defines the probability of A given that B has occurred. So if A = the author sells the EA and B = the EA is profitable, then P(A|B) = 0. THis can be shown by a proof by contradiction: Assume P(A|B) != 0, then the author would sell a profitable EA which would cause a crowded trade therefore making the EA not profitable invalidating our initial assumption. So P(A|B) = 0. I'm just fucking around. Use EAs for ideas, nothing more.

Modus ponens is latin for "mode that affirms affirms", meaning if P->Q then either both P and Q are true or both P and Q are false (finally the one class I took on logic mattered). W.R.T the topic, anyone who offers a "winning" system on youtube is almost certainly a liar.

So, it's a combination of bracket and trailing orders, at a certain time of the day...etc, but the only thing that he isn't saying is which "Percent profitable" of trades his method does. I could understand that you open positions after the initial opening rush, but trading at a certain time of the day trusting on some time pattern doesn't sound reliable, because markets are always destroying and creating patterns.

There are multiple variations on this approach, which includes stuff such as opening range break-outs, bracket trades etc. They all rely on the tendency of the market to move with greater energy and in a more consistent direction when the London market opens and also when the NY market joins it later. On paper, this seems to work. But in practice too many moves are false starts. Unless you know different..........

This is not true. Assume P => Q. If P is true, then Q is true. However, if P is false then Q can still be true. The statement P => Q is (logically equivalent to) the statement ~Q => ~P where ~ represents the negation of a statement. I'm sure you know this to be the case, having taken a course on formal logic.

@padutrader you seemed to be doing alright with the method you were applying before, haven't kept up on your thread though. Did you stop doing it for some reason? Trading is boring, even after you get some edge that works. Your job is basically to refine it endlessly. Also, I wanted to say that there is a guy on YouTube I've been following for years, doesn't have very many viewers but has been very open about his edge. I've validated his edge myself. But he doesn't sell anything.