No, I was not attacking you and if it came across that way, I apologise.
You put up a chart implying that the trades were plain to see. I simply pointed out that it is easy to annotate and explain after the fact, as Al Brooks famously does.
The commonality in Brooks method, Fibonacci, etc etc is that not one book that I have come across tells you what the success rate of any entry is. Now if the author actually trades the system, s/he should have the statistics to support the claim, so why not?
In Brooks first book, he pointed to a higher low and said that was a good entry. On that same chart there was a prior higher low that he ignored. Why?
It is easy to say this H1 is a good entry, that H2 is a great entry after the fact. Well, why was that H1 before the great H2 entry not a good entry? And if you trade say the ES and you take the H1 through H4 entries and all fail, with a 2 point stop you are now 8 points in the hole, excluding commissions, and need to make that back.
Excluding commissions, if an entry fails 90% of the time, you need to make 9R to break even. If that same entry fails 60% of the time, you only need to make 1.5R to break even. If it fails 30% of the time, you break even with about 0.43R. As you can see the swing is huge, which is why I bother with it all.
Peace my friend, and may we all find success.
