By the way, what is this obsession that market players have with predictions?
It's a thorny subject, mostly because people discussing this in forums use the word "prediction" with (at least) two very different meanings.
Here's the thing: we don't need to be able to "predict" the outcomes of
individual trades, to make a living from trading.
All we need to do (given adequate money-management and trade-management skills, and those are of course enormous assumptions) is to be able to predict to a small, overall,
collective, statistical degree of outcome-probability.
For example, if you have a method with the same sized TP and SL, net of dealing costs, and it has a win-rate of 54% and a loss-rate of 46%, you can make a living from it - if its trading-opportunity frequency is high enough - simply because out of every 100 trades you use it for, you'll emerge
on average with 8 net-profitable trades.
Some people think of that as "predicting";
others don't.
Hence all the confusion and talking at cross-purposes on the subject, in this and in other forums.
And most of the different perceptions about the issue, and therefore the traditional forum discussions on this subject, revolve around people's different perceptions of
precisely that question.
In the end, it doesn't matter how you, or I, or anyone else defines "prediction": the collective outcomes for a trader (rather than for an
investor) are inevitably both mathematical and objective.
The reality, of course, is that most amateur traders are losing money rather than making it, and that's commonly because their statistical/probabilistic understanding isn't up to the task they're trying to achieve: either their methods
don't actually have a net positive expectancy at all (and that's very often the case), or if they do, they're mismanaged on the trade-management/position-sizing front so that the available overall profits don't actually materialize (and that's very often the case, too).
And all of that, of course, is without mentioning psychology and emotion at all ...