Agree. I've noticed what appears to be a higher signal to noise ratio in up moves compared to down. I'm consistently seeing higher p/f's on the long side, no matter how I tune my systems.
elliot wave analysis, while not explaining why, does state that corrective waves come in threes while impulse waves come in fives.
"This isn't just about systems"? I thought you asked about systems. Now you are turning this to the market. There is some but little connection between the two. If you think that your systems do explain what the market does you are mistaken. You were already told that the market moves down faster than it moves up on the average. If you do not like the explanation fine. But why getting into a personal argument? Isn't this what you are trying to do? (ref. "you are so quick to hammer in other threads").
Firstly, there isn't anything I disagree with in your post, or the previous one. I also didn't mean to provoke you. My main point before was that "noise" trading sounds like you're implying intraday trading is garbage, which isn't all that true... definitely lots of positives for trading on 60 min or hourly charts (i.e. marathon style moves), and lots to be worried about as far as getting creamed intraday. In the OP, I mentioned why systems and the market almost always default to picking a higher price. Basic question, but thought it'd be an interesting one to talk about. See here: Some systems can tell what the market is doing btw... maybe you don't qualify these as systems, but basic indicators such as accu/dis give 'raw' data on (in this indicator) shares being acquired/unloaded. From my less-than-most experience in system building, the trick is to have an underlying idea that works (i.e. not total quantitative garbage) that isn't susceptible to curve fitting (many coefficients work, and a larger profit target is good) AND a solid win rate. As a bonus, a set of algorithms that have coefficients that can be predictably changed based on macro market conditions - ex. inputs 1 and 4 for 2008, 2 and 3 for 2009-2012 - are excellent to work with. Given the difficulty in meeting all of this, many systems that work well are often very simple (at least the ones I've done). Don't feel the need to reply in a heated response... sorry if it's difficult to convey body language over text, it wasn't my intention to PO you a bit...