I think what he's saying is that often price appears to set up a triangle, but then turns into some other formation and a trade entered on the (perceived) breakout turns out to be a loser.
If the apparent triangle turns into something else before a breakout signal occurs, then of course it's not a triangle and the pattern is then void. The term for putting on a trade without a valid signal first is called "jumping the gun". In a sporting competition, false starts result in penalties.
If an actual symmetrical triangle sets up (two swing points descending and two swing points ascending) and price breaks out, that's simply a signal for a potential trade. If you've done your statistical analysis of at least 100 appearances of this pattern, you realize that the signal becomes valid under certain conditions. For example, a tiny "breakout" that immediately turns back inside the triangle isn't a valid signal; it's a "tease". Since there's almost no space between the (weak or failed) breakout and a pull back to the breakout level, there's nothing to do...yet.
Finally, if a signal is valid, then you either place a limit to enter on the pullback to breakout level or you trail a buy/sell stop as the pullback bars close ONLY if the reward:risk criteria meet the requirements of your carefully researched and tested trading plan.
Oh, pardon me? I didn't catch that. You don't have a detailed analysis of at least 100 appearances of this setup.
I do.
Maybe that's why I magically know when to trade it, how to trade it and how to manage the trade after I'm in.
If spending hours and hours doing that sort of tedious analysis isn't your cup of tea, then you have the answer to the question posed by this thread.
