Quote from jOllie:
If the above was true, all would be good and easy. Patterns are ever changing just enough to make every entry random. It's how you manage the entry that makes the difference. You can only see the pattern in the past any how, either you were in it or not
Programs like you listed are nonsense since these ta patterns are not even defined properly let alone tested to show probabilities. Bukowski book doesn't hold up and is snake oil to the masses.
I agree with you to a certain extent, but there is at least one way to mitigate the subjectivity of pattern recognition and the efficacy of that mitigation can be tested to derive probabilities for success. I know because I've seen it done and collected the data to derive the probabilities. I don't know about that particular program, so I can't say if it does this or not.
Basically, though, it sounds like you are saying that because pattern-based trading sometimes provides "false positives", leading to losing trades, that it is invalid. But every methodology gives "false positives" otherwise no one would ever make a losing trade, no? No one would enter a trade without expecting it to be successful, even if you knew that your probability of success based on history was less than 100%, yet not all trades are successful. Let's say I know my winning percentage is 50%, I would still never enter a trade if I thought it would be among the 50% of my trades which lose, so I'm clearly getting an "all clear" signal to enter which is false. Yes, I can optimize and try to figure out the conditions under which those 50% can be reduced, but I'm still always left with some number of false positives. This is simply a reflection of the reality of trading under uncertainty.
Also, my experience with pattern-based trading methods is that one pattern implies a specific sequence of events to follow with some probability X, so that the pattern is the set-up, not the trade. To take a simple example, you trade the breakdown from a H&S pattern, not the beginning of the left shoulder.