Quote from dbphoenix:
God knows I don't want to get into another discussion over what constitutes "random entry". However, there are a few points in this that should be carefully thought over rather than accepted like bumper-stickers.
The outcome of every trade is dependent on the exit. If we enter in a timely fashion and then exit poorly, the trade is likely to be a loss. If our entry happens to be poor but our exit is good we might still salvage a profit. The exits, not the entries, determine the outcome of our trades.
On the fact of it, this seems like a "duh". But it is not. My primary quibble is the second sentence: "if we enter in a timely fashion and then exit poorly, the trade is likely to be a loss". Yes and no. If we enter in a timely fashion and then exit poorly, the trade may be more likely to be a loss than a profit, but a loss is not a lock.
This discussion hinges on the following: "the purpose of an entry is to get the trade started in the right direction". If the entry doesn't fulfill this purpose, the trade is less likely to be successful. If the entry is chosen without this purpose in mind, yes one can exit with only a small loss if the trade goes in the wrong direction. But the odds that such an exit will be necessary are less than if this purpose is made an important objective. To imply with the example of trading advice from Mars that one can make "random" entries and still be successful if the exits are good is to derail the piece from its more important points.
As I said, I don't want to get into another "discussion" of random entry. However, several traders may make certain assumptions regarding what this piece is all about depending upon whatever preconceived notions they may have about entries and exits. It is important, therefore, to be sensitive to seeming inconsistencies in the piece.