Quote from Gabfly1:
Then they are not all "50/50" after all, are they? Not that I am suggesting placing a number on the "probability" of it, but some setups are better than others a priori. The outcome, as always, is another matter.
I think you are mixing two issues here. .......................
Yes, this is the way I see the price behave, there are two components.
The setup IMO can only be coded so far and in itself is a rather dumb animal.
Try coding it too far and you will take it into the territory that I refer to as Market Mood which is changing day to day, but which contains common elements.
It is beyond my capacity and desire to code Market Moods even though over the years I have taught myself to read it sufficiently to take my Setup probability significantly closer to 1.
Obviously the number of usable Setups is reduced greatly from the number which triggers the alarm and I reject some good Setups along the way.
But please bear in mind that "good setups" are only determined after the fact.
In the end, on a liquid instrument such as ES, the Setup and the screening by Market Mood only provide a platform to which trade size can be applied.
Consistency can be a nominal outcome each and every day, but it comes from our brain and as such the manner in which we trap and release price.
You can call it an artform, you can call it an edge, it does not matter.
The only thing that is important IMO is the manner in which I train my brain to accept/ reject information and the order in which I assemble it.
Always, always price leads and I follow. That is not to say I cannot trap price but I never ever trade a breakout because my setup does not provide for such an animal.