livermores ghost said
As I said, this analysis is utter nonsense. Basically, the biases are a bit map that any monkey could match to market data. Are there any statistical analyses that show a positive expectation to this methodology? I'm willing to bet no. I suppose you could start weighting the various factors, but then we all know that the market adapts.
And your book is wrong... a loss does not necessarily get you closer to the next profit unless you've proven a serial dependency for consecutive signals, i.e., that the next trade after a loss (or multiple losses) has a higher likelihood of profit, given a certain risk unit.
-----------------------------
of course a loss gets you closer to your next win. a win gets you closer to your next win. a trade gets you closer to your next win. it all gets you closer to your next loss also. so what? so nothing. i follow signals and don't sweat what's happened before. and yes, there is historical analysis that demonstrates such biases over the last several years. i've posted them. you don't want to believe them? good for you. i don't claim anything other than this is what historical biases of the last few years are projecting for tomorrow.
i'm kind of flattered that you're spending so much time in my site. but please, let me return the favor. where is this great alternative trading methodology of yours? please direct me to it. i really want to make a lot of money fast.