there are many poeple posting here who have the clue needed to have precise systems. I track about a dozen to see the next addition each needs. I also put these sysems on a spectrum. here is how it looks after 54 years of watching. Not many good systems overlap. It is not possible to fill in a gap between systems to get them to work together. Of all the procedural clues for designing and developing a system the Behavioral Finance sites comes the closest. Its short peice called" BF or BS" is the coolest. The random char put up by the denver coin tosser dmonstrates that any data stream can be handled bar by bar and ooperate to take the full offer of that system. For ridiculousness, the 5,000 rules examination takes the cake for stupidity of reasoning. In my opinion the simpls way to become independentt is to have a stock universe and position trade it. The table for doing that was inventede and then 400,000 samples, showed (inductively (ugh)) that no cells needed to be changed. It makes about 10% evey 4 to 6 days. An SQL language type code can be used and their is only one look up table. There are many prints of its use. Finally, surf is a very huge example of why TA does not work for just anyone. ET has provided a huge benefit to its readers because of the most thorough scope and bounding of surf that many many have contributed to.
If you learned how to read the mkts, you wouldn't HAVE to believe. You would know it's possible because you would see it with your own eyes. But why do that, you have your price drivers strategy. You should just focus on that, don't you think?
"read the markets". That sure sounds intuitive or skill based. I have no issue with intuitive TA. It can't be tested, I would never use it, but if it works for you, I have no reason to argue. But why you , logic , and the rest of the TA brigade does not admit this and insists its objective and programmable. Is what I don't understand. NoDoji admits to intuition.
I already told you some pages ago how my method uses objective entries, based on bar's OHLC in a certain sequence. Once I have that sequence, I use A, B and C criteria. If those ALSO align, in combination with the OHLC sequence a trade is placed. 100% objective and non random. But this system was ONLY possible once I understood how to read the mkts. I used this knowledge to build an objective trading method. All based on the TA I put together.
This is great advice, NoD. Frankly, I never say it's "just gut feel", but usually when asked and can't exactly describe my internal thinking algorithm in a particular case, say that I will try to explain as well as I can, but ask readers to give me more questions if something is unclear.
Just lazy people who think the market is totally random just because they haven't figured out a way to consistently profit from it. Typical defense mechanism.