I've got a few days of posts to wade through and reply to, so bear with me. I am not caught up to the present moment yet so if I address something someone else already has, feel free to ignore it.
Quote from bundlemaker:
If you can't know it's a flaw until after the fact, what good does it do you?
The phrase "after the fact" is not black and white. After what fact? How long after that fact? What kind of fact? Etc.
If you enter thinking it's an FTT mid bar, but volume stops dead in its tracks and the bar ends with 35% the vol of the previous bar, you now know "after the fact" that this really probably isn't an FTT and it's time to re-evaluate your position. Not to hard to see how we benefited from IDing this flaw "after the fact."
I am as yet unable to even imagine how one would trade outside of a probability mentality. The way I'm approaching the analysis is "what's most likely to happen", as when I use WMCN, I'm wrong even more often.
You've been here before, BM, battling with the notion of "predicting." You are focusing on what is happening NEXT when you should be focusing on what IS or IS NOT happening RIGHT NOW.
I sometimes have trouble with the same thing, I have to admit. There were some days where my end score was a mess-- I was overtrading and predicting, and it wasn't pretty. But when I reviewed the video I noticed something -- that if I had traded only at the moments when I drew in my channels, I would have been very, very in the green. I drew my channels based on what I "knew" was happening NOW based on the gaussians. But my trigger finger was reacting on what I thought would happen next, instead.
What must come next? I'm afraid I've been pulling the same stunt I've tried to so often before. I'm reading this as "what must come next, unless something else happens". Is this true or am I still road blocking myself?
In no way does this phrase in any way imply any form of prediction. It is merely an acknowledgment of future possibilities. If we have an FTT, what must happen next
in order for this to remain an FTT? We must see decreasing red volume back to the RTL. If we see anything other than that, "what must happen next" did not happen next, and therefore our original assertion was invalidated and corrective action must be taken.
You are approaching this in a different way. You are using "what must come next" as a vehicle for prediction rather than anticipation. An example of this would be saying, "This is an FTT, so what must happen next is that we have decreasing red volume back to the trendline." This implies that you have predicted that we WILL have decreasing volume back to the trendline, when in reality, we may not.
so fuggetaboutit.