Although I agree with you 100%, the fact of the matter is even the best traders I don't think operate like a machine. I mean if each person keeping a journal was to be doing it right (ie. not thinking and just reacting), there would be no need for discussion. The journal section would simply be a flow chart:An interesting thread title but not what I thought it was.....mmmmm
Sounds like a mind trap.....and I wonder.....when there is a plan/method, is there a need to think?.....or just follow the plan/method?.....isn't thinking contradicting directly against the plan/method?
Do you have a trading plan? --> yes.... then execute it
Do you have a trading plan? --> no... then make one
Did you follow the plan? --> yes... then onto the next trade regardless of outcome
Did you follow the plan? --> no... then follow it
From what I have pieced together, each trader has a general idea of how they will enter a trade, what they look for, but within this is a subset of rules, almost intuition or years of experience that is actually where the being profitable part comes alive. Its what tells them when to stay out or to go in big, even though some other conditions are met.
Take for example SLA as DbPhoenix teaches. The entry is easy, its a retracement entry after a change from buyers being in control to sellers, etc. Yet nobody that I can see has made it work. Then of course you start getting into context. So you gotta be careful around areas of congestion, and of course you have to be aware of extremes, like overnight ranges or previous day ranges. He says you have to test your own method for what constitutes an exit (ie. break of a trendline, break of a swing point, a loss of a certain amount of points after entry). So what we have now is a trading plan that seems easy, with a million different set of sub rules that make you want to try to increase your win %. So really, this isn't a trading plan, any more so than saying buy low and sell high.
So now you have to ask.. what is the trading plan? Is the trading plan the RET entry after a trendline is broken and hence a change in trend from buyers in control to sellers? Or is the trading plan actually the years of experience and countless sub rules derived from context. (ie. don't take the RET entry for a long trade if you are within a few points of an overnight high, etc.)
So it seems to me that each person claims to have a trading plan, but I think the actual trading plan is simply a general idea of how a trade is entered and how much they are going to risk or what they will look for to exit. But in terms of when to put this into motion, this is where the magic happens, and this is where the thinking comes into play, or rather, where the experience comes into play. There are subtle nuances that tell the expert trader when to not be looking for a trade even though the general idea being the trade entry criteria might set up.
So I think there is a huge difference between what a trading plan might be, what is written down, and what is actually done. I would bet that if anyone who is profitable wrote out their trading plan and showed me their trades, I could find many instances of trades either being taken or not taken on their chart that don't agree with their plan. If questioned they would of course have good reason.. (ie... pace seemed sluggish) but these would be things not in the trading plan.
My point is that I think only guys designing automated systems have solid trading plans since they have to program each and every step, but most other price actions traders are going with a general idea but lots of intuition and experience, and hence thinking. It just so happens that their thought patterns are much more developed and accurate than mine.
My thought pattern might be "shit... I'm not sure here... price doesn't looking like its strong... lets wait to see what traders do with it and then get in", whereas the expert will be thinking "price doesn't looks strong, here is my best opportunity to short with the least amount of risk.. time to click the sell button and then lets see what happens".
