...The fact that he's pulling these numbers out of his ass doesn't add to his credibility I'm afraid.
It's very easy to post statistical data and there's a few websites that actually do such about indicators, price patterns and such. For example
@ http://thepatternsite.com/frequency.html
Unfortunately, a lot of these types of sites use their own trade management rules and very little
or no risk management / market context for whatever it was they were testing. Yet, it does show that statistical analysis can be used to
verify the hypothesis although actual application in real trading is something completely different.
Also, just as strange, you'll see people spend a lot of time & energy marking up hindsight charts about a price pattern but they too do not post any statistical data set to verify whatever probability they were talking about.
The same is true in the other camp...people bashing a trade method, pattern, indicator or whatever. If someone states its
does not work...
They usually are
not able to show the statistical analysis to support that it
does not work.
Lets step outside of Al Brooks and look at something that's used by some that say
it works and stated by others that it
does not work. Yet, rarely will you see someone post the statistical analysis data to support their comments except for a few that understand the importance of truly doing the work.
- A common punching bag is Japanese Candlestick Patterns
These are well known patterns debated at many trading forums including here at ET but very few have shown the statistical data @
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/de2e/08d8126492e1968e45fe5e0e6a128911633b.pdf
Here's something they said that was interesting...
In this work, we analyze the predictive power of the Shooting Star and Hammer patterns using over six decades of historical data of the S&P 500 index. In our studies, we found out that historically these patterns have offered little forecasting reliability when using closing prices but were highly reliable when using high price for the Shooting Star and low price for the Hammer.
In their statistical study / research of two particular patterns it was
unreliable but they discover something interesting. They go on to say -
- ...highly reliable when using high price for the Shooting Star and low price for the Hammer.
Now imagine if someone comes along here at ET and starts posting hindsight mark-up charts about Shooting Stars patterns and Hammer patterns about their trade method that utilizes the high price of the Shooting Star pattern and the low price of the Hammer pattern.
The same person then posts the statistical analysis data to support whatever the probability they stated. There's a little more credibility there beyond just saying that
it works. Now imagine if the same person takes it a step further via also posting simulator trade performance
or real money trade performance metrics via their trading Shooting Star patterns and Hammer patterns.
It's an easy debate to win against those that say it
does not work especially the ones that do not have any statistical data to verify that it
does not work.
- False narratives exist on both sides of the camp and a good trader will explore both sides to determine on their own the merits of anything especially if they think it can make them money.
After all the above, there's still
no guarantee that a
point n click trader can apply a trade method efficiently for profits especially when market conditions change. Simply, they still gotta apply risk management and use the method within the proper market context of the current market conditions.
My point, those that
quote probabilities should be able to post statistical analysis data, graphs or whatever instead of just words.
wrbtrader