It won't be nears as easy as you think, but it needs to be done. The time consuming part won't be writing out the plan it will be backtesting to determine what works, what doesn't, what kind of probabilities/risk/reward/etc. That part takes a truckload of time.
Yes, I am absolutely seeing this, and this is exactly why it hasn't been done yet. I've had so many great ideas, but once I started digging in a bit, it fell apart. Now I didn't quite go through enough examples to see if there was still a positive edge, so perhaps I have always given up too soon. I of course know if I identify a set of trade parameters that has a 50% expectancy over 100 trades of hitting the profit target versus the stop loss, but the 50% that works leads to a profit twice that of the 50% that leads to a loss, its a solid setup. But alas, I've never gotten this far. Each setup started to look different.
And to be honest, I am still battling an internal conflict between what Db does and what ND does. It seems to me that ND has analyzed this down to the tick and knows the stats of all her "setups". Db on the other hand looks more at the big picture, doesn't micromanage as much, and tries to capture the bigger swings. What I love about what ND is showing is very clean entries and profit targets, with potentially lots of possible trades in a day. What I love with what Db is showing is that trading less can very well lead to bigger profits, but his entries of just simple retracements aren't as clean, meaning they fail far too often I think unless its a strongly trending day like today. Now of course when I say fail, to me that means price just going against me 3 or 4 points, which in the whole grand scheme of things isn't a failure when you look at the big picture. But unless you got in on the first and best entry, each subsequent entry can cause problems.
Anyway, so once again, in some ways, I'm running around in a circle and causing my own problems, but believe it or not, I am actually trying to move forward!
