The only way to consistently make money in the financial markets is to be able to look behind price to get one step ahead of it. In other words, look to see what moves price, quantify this, then make an educated and statistically based guess on what will happen next in the market. Information is the only thing that matters in the markets.
Interesting. So, some sources of information other than price are useful to you? I've been dismissive of market depth personally (after hearing whales detail how they can hide their volume at will, etc.) and I can't really think of much else, apart from arbitration but that's not really a retail game. Maybe news, though automated news trading is already quite popular and I'd assume priced into the action.
In addition, I have read Wykoff--- his writing style is just like all the other gurus-- it needs to be interpreted to make sense and to systematize-- market goes up he wins, market goes down he wins--- its very nebulous material
Just curious, did you read his course from the 1930's or some of his earlier material? I wouldn't qualify the bits I've read so far as nebulous; they're somewhat mechanical in fact, about recognizing the tracks left by market manipulators.
Price is the past, the past does not equal the future in anyway. [...] but its base belief that price somehow determines future price is logically flawed. This flaw has tricked wannabe traders like DB--- if they are making money, its because of money management.
But isn't trading about probabilities, not certainty? Nothing "equals" or "predicts" the future, but can you statistically disprove that buying a pull-back down to a trend line incurs less downside risk than buying completely at random? If entry selection was entirely meaningless, then truly randomly generated entry times and directions, with the right money management, would yield excellent results, yet I've heard of the thought experiment but of no trader actually relying on such a system. Therefore, while I do think money management is massively important, I have not seen any proper proof that it, alone, explains a chart trader's success. Someone would need to demonstrate a similarly profitable random entry system, which would make headlines. (If it's been done, I'd love to read more about it!)
Also, an example which comes to mind, perhaps the simplest and least subjective one. If past price truly wasn't useful in helping to determine its probable subsequent path, then simple geometry like Andrews' median lines wouldn't predict mean reversion roughly 80% of the time, which they do. Given that those have been researched by multiple parties over several decades, I can't dismiss them as a fluke.
This is what leads me to think that what works
for you (whatever it is) may not be the
only non-random way of trading. And I'm not referring to Wyckoff or SLA/AMT here, nor money management, but about price history being in any way meaningful in finding opportunities with better than random probabilities. I haven't seen that DISproved yet, which is why I ask for clarifications when there's a claim such as yours that price is random in relation with itself over time.
(Quick note:
if DB's been trading for a living for more than a year or two, then he is by definition not a "wannabe", but in fact a practitioner, regardless of the reasons behind his success, which are merely a matter of opinion.)
