That was my thought. Also for someone who supposedly found a high winning rate strategy they are awfully angry to have questions asked for some strange reason. Makes you question their whole claim, especially after mentioning a website and paid suck err customers. Traders trade, Barkers bark.
Al Brooks video
- Thread starter syswizard
- Start date
He's angry because he could not figure out how to make 1.8% compounding work. He never compounded. He just traded micro lots. His foray into futures was short-lived. It was hard to keep track of his 10 journals he had going at the same time trading his FX system.
Compounding does work, but what's very rare....is the actual skill, wisdom, experience and knowledge and management required to be able to work and process those trades relatively consistently. A lot of gamblers are otherwise just fooling themselves in this game.
You are quoting me out of context, as you usually seem to do to make a point you think is important.
Hear ya go Freddy. Bet you won’t find this in many, if any TA pamphlets…The concept of a failed failure. LOL no ROFLMAO
“ Failed failure A failure that fails, resuming in the direction of the original breakout, and therefore a breakout pullback. Since it is a second signal, it is more reliable. For example, if there is a breakout above a trading range and the bar after the breakout is a bear reversal bar, if the market trades below that bar, the breakout has failed. If the market then trades above the high of a prior bar within the next few bars, the failed breakout has failed and now the breakout is resuming. This means that the failed breakoutbecame a small bull flag and just a pullback from the breakout.”
"Trading Price Action Trends: Technical Analysis of Price Charts Bar by Bar for the Serious Trader" by Al Brooks
ARE YOU A SERIOUS TRADER FREDDY?
So, getting back in (at a higher price if long) when price resumes in the direction of your trade after you got stopped out is a revelation? And it needs its own name? How cool is that. Yeah, I'm sure no one ever did that until they read Brooks' books. And is getting in at the second try really more reliable? I don't see why. Does Brooks provide proof to back the claim that it is more reliable apart from his say-so?
But wait, did you know I discovered a failed ... failed failure. Triple F I call it. Video and book to follow. S&H included. YMMV. No returns after 30 days.
You should speak to a patent attorney first. You wouldn't want any unauthorized use of your momentous discovery.
Yup checking into it.
Meanwhile just noticed I poorly worded my discovery. It is a failed failure fail. Though still Triple F. Forgot to mention where I got my inspiration:-
Others call that a double top.