a) wrong, price action FOLLOWED the fundamental regime shift, not lead it b) yes, it would have gotten you long, after 2/3 of the move was done. Not saying this is not a sound approach to follow a trend but book to price ratios in that posted pdf still have nothing to do with technicals. Are you able to reflect and possibly admit someone else also got a valid point sometimes?
yes, and had Trump lost you would have ended up in the shitter...sometimes it makes sense to wait until after major events play out rather than playing a guessing game, given it is close to a coin flip.
In the interest of a healthy discussion I will post why this trade from a TA perspective was a rather low risk high reward trade and NOT a coin flip trade. I will only use support/resistance lines and price chart patterns and NO indicators to show my thoughts on this trade and why I took it about 1 month prior to the election and held through the election night.
Look at the evidence presented in the previous page! Facts are, if fundamentals are strong enough to stimulate a consensus for more buying or selling - that is strongly reflected in price data as an emergent new trend or a fresh directional push ( higher highs and higher lows ).
Sure if you include everything under the sun and call it TA then I agree. I was not aware that higher highs and higher lows are TA most trend following systems would have gotten you in days after the Trump win though. But of course you will counter that you are the only boy in town who held a large position through this insane event risk.
Higher highs and higher lows describes price action that would indeed trigger any trend following system - after all, TA is based upon price price action.
Right, except none of your brethren who generally post trade entries and exits day in day out have ever made a call post Trump based on technical analysis. At least not until days after. They usually have something technical to say about every stock under the sun.
Wow quite the brouhaha over the holidays from a simple question of TA vs FA. Lol. Who gives a shit if someone uses TA of FA. Whatever works for them works. It really doesn't matter how bad a system or reliability is, as long as it nets green in the P/L statement. If it doesn't work then they'll end up blowing up their trading account, and that hurts a lot more than some words on an anonymous forum. Yes I'd agree with everything you said there. To answer your question, I personally would define trading before a news driven event to be fundamental. If you're going in after the news event and waiting for the dust to settle for setups for entries/exits, or looking at price action to gauge over extensions for pullbacks, rallies, etc I would define that as using TA. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this kind of the consensus agreed definition?
I could not care less whether some of those people blow up spectacularly. I care about all that dishonesty out there and falsification of facts by TA snake oil salesmen. And I care about certain shady cheaters misleading newbies.
Alrighty, fair enough. Btw, that particular comment which you replied to wasn't intended specifically to you. It was just a broad statement to the posters of this thread.