I don't know how anyone else trades, really, but I know that I have zero intuition. I have a bunch of rules and when they trigger a trade, I take it. And you can't just look at one set-up and say "Oh, because 20 different traders would trade that one set-up 20 different ways, that means TA (or PA) is subjective". You have to look at a much larger sample size than 1 trade. The reason, obviously, is that no method, objective or subjective, can win on every trade. Give those same 20 traders 100 set-ups and by the end of the 100 trades, you'll start to see a lot of separation between the good and the bad traders. Give them 1000 set-ups and I would be shocked if 1 trader didn't turn out to be the best.
some people want to keep believing something is impossible. the pain is too great to bear if they are proven wrong. ignorance is bliss.
the coding surfs RDBMS programmer generated would draw these lines. Pt1 is the reversal for each segment. I didn't see your chart. his chart shows VE's and a M1 ...M2 red It also shows haw to move points when acceleration exists. cahrt on next post
Critique: 1. Chart does NOT contain volume. SCT heavily relies on volume. Omitting volume is like driving with one half blind eye through rush hour. Volume leads price. Drill: Post charts of one week with perfectly annotated volume gaussians on three fractals! 2. Chart is only annoted on one fractal. Annotating multiple fractals prevent you from jumping fractals too soon. Drill: Post charts of one week with all three fractals annotated. You may skip the yellow boxes but annotate all laterals. Sorry, Jack. Couldn't resist. ;-)
Well, try and teach your method to someone else and see what happens. I've talked to some traders who are successful and I know how they trade, yet I can't duplicate their success. Even though I know all the rules I still can't do it. Well, not yet at least. But that's why I've become convinced there has to be more to it than just the method/rules.
I'm curious why you can't follow their rules. Is it because their rules are not well-defined or is it because you can't bring yourself to trade their rules? I've taught my core method to quite a few traders and they can't duplicate the success because they don't trade every setup defined by the rules. That has nothing to do with the method, though. It's their mindset that's causing a problem. As a struggling trader, I watched a successful price action trader for nearly a year and he called every entry, stop, and target in advance. After a couple months, I realized that he was quite profitable and I didn't even have to know his rules because he called every trade in advance and I could've mirrored every one of them and had a fantastic year. The problem was that the rules weren't mine, I had no experience with his style of trading, and I didn't trust that it would keep working over time. I was certain that any day it would begin to fail badly. Whenever he called a trade setup, it seemed totally improbable to me that the trade could possibly reach his profit target. Every setup looked impossible at the right edge of the chart. Whenever a trade hit his stop loss it simply reinforced my firm belief that his style of trading could not be consistently profitable over time. I had a severe case of survivor bias watching him trade. One day he had 5 out of 5 trades hit his stop loss, and I smugly thought, "See? Just what I thought, he's lost his edge." But he knew from 8 years of experience that "there is a random distribution between wins and losses for any given set of variables that define an edge" and 5 losses in a row were completely within reason for his plan. I couldn't argue with the hard data by the end of that year. He was not only consistently profitable, he was very profitable.
And yet you are dropping it all to start a brand new method that is unproven and untested. Why would you want to abandon something that's been "very good" to you?