Quote from cornix:
Wrbtrader,
I honestly don't get your disappointment. Yes I don't share exactly the TA ideas behind performance. But I clearly claimed from the start I only use TA. Not that I'm going to explain how exactly.
Of course it may happen so that people don't believe me and prefer to think I use crystal ball to trade. 
But exactly the same could happen if I shared ideas, because what if they are not exactly the basis of my trades? What if I say I use this or that TA pattern, but use a secret algo instead?
I prefer to progress gradually. So far there are only 15 or so trades, so it's not even worth attention. When there will be significant sample size, I will think about the next step. So far it stays as it is. 
cornix,
Maybe I'm not clear and I will post below your opening statement form your performance thread.
Quote from cornix:
After multiple arguments on the matter I decided to bring a bit of objectivity to the field of continuous holy war and demonstrate some of the actual performance achieved with use of a couple simple TA signals. Will I prove TA has some value or the opposite, time will show.
Brief description of the approach: pure technical analysis, all actions are triggered by certain chart patterns with microscopic fundamental component (I am unable to isolate myself from the news and hence accept the possibility of subconscious directional bias depending on fundamentals)...
Further, you have stated in this thread and in other threads before your performance record thread about yourself and in agreements with others (e.g. NoDoji)...you
only use TA. Your TA is objective...there's not subjectivity. Can't you see to contradiction in your belief versus your opening statement above.
But I clearly claimed from the start I only use TA.
By the way, I've already establish to you in earlier conversation that you can
not make the claim that you're
only using TA because that's in contradictory of your opening statement of your performance thread via using "microscopic fundamentals", "news" along with the fact you mentioned in another thread you use
other trading tools "besides" just TA without going into any details about what those other tools are.
That's my argument and the argument of surf. You can not prove that TA works under the facade its the
only thing you're using when in fact the TA you're using is amongst other tools in your trading plan. Hopefully you now understand my disappointment when you started that other thread without proving in the other thread and now admitting you'll NEVER disclose the simple TA for proof after saying you'll bring objectivity to the continuous war of these TA debates...you have failed to do such.
Yet, you may succeed in proving you're a profitable trader and you'll succeed in continuing the TA debate.
Don't misunderstand...there's nothing wrong with having a TA chapter in your book that has many other chapters. What's wrong is that you continue IMPLYING its the
only chapter in your trading plan and because of such you can prove that TA works.
The fact is that you're a discretionary trader even though you can't use those words about yourself as if its in contradiction of the "objective TA" claim.
This is similar to NoDoji's claim that she does NOT use any indicators via the claim she
only uses pure price action while at the same time saying she uses price moving averages along with showing price moving averages on many of her charts. Her defense statement...those are not technical indicators.
You guys and gals walk around ET using the words like "only", "pure" very carelessly and then you get into debates with folks like surf that replies via saying "prove it".
P.S. I do think you have a sincere interest in trying to prove that TA works but the way you're trying to do it is NOT objective.
