I don't disagree with this. There is a "proper" and "scientific" way to approach TA-- I am not saying that this works-- or makes sense-- but at least it follow proper protocol--- unlike those on this site that claim to use probabilities , stats, and science but are really just looking at charts and guesing yet have self deluded themselves into believing differently. That's my primary issue with TA folks--- surf
In fact, if they mention money management or other REAL trading facts-- sales DROP-- because it isn't what people want to hear. surf
CORRECT. This is evident by the fact that there is very little interest in the risk management forum here and that should be the most read.
I don't agree. The first thing you need is a very good trading system.This system should keep you informed all the time so that you can get out if needed. The only reason why I need risk management is in case of an emergency. And that risk management is very simple and very effective: I put a stop at X points. That's all I need. So most reading should be done about building a very good trading system. The better the system the less you will need risk management.
It's not that simple. Your risk of ruin over a large time-span is partially determined based on your stop placement. Using X derived from the average true range is not good enough unless you have an edge sharper than any PA-trading teacher's. What do you use?
Math. Last 10 years never a drawdown bigger than 30%. No losing months. Stops at 0.15% of entry. Don't use ATR.
There must be some institutions using TA otherwise why has this guy been welcomed into the hall of fame? http://www.institutionalinvestor.co...e-welcomes-jeffrey-degraaf.html#/.Vt4abSCLTC0