In PVT trading, as you have read many times, 1 out of 8 trades in position trading has to be exited as a FBO.
In SCT trading early on I recommended doing wash trades for practice. As time passed and the learning was more formalized that has become unecessary since there is a anti-whiplash element in SCT trading when a too early trade ensues. So with either approach , the early one or the present one, there is no need for a trader to have losing trades.
with the 24,000 trades trader666 did on his portfolio managed 1000 S&P 500 stocks from 2002 to 2005 it would have been dice to see his win lost ratio in numbers of trades. He lost appxoimatelt 50% of his capital each year going from 500,000 to 100,000 end capital. All stocks were boutght on rising price, rising volume and A going to D. He invenered a portfolio management techniquw for exiting which he averes is common in portfolio management. And he concludes from his work that scoring the P,V relationship doesn't work.
To this date no one has duplicatd his work or your work on SPM. Both these failures of individuals doing what they did are not duplicated by users of PVT and SCT.
There is a minor issue, as always, in proving successful systems do not work. The minor problem is that the systems are being used by successful people and successful people are passing the approaches forward. For stocks, we are in the fourth generation of doing this. Some mentally challended adults with trusts would be in their early 70's and late 60's.
So how does one go about proving something wrong that is successful? SPM is not an example since it doesn't qualify by the hypothesis. What about portfolio backtesting? Can any portfolio backtest of a successful system prove the system is a failure? What is the only thing a porfolio test of a successful system prove? The answer is it must use the rules of the system and show how the rules work. Testing part of something is a good idea too, but you can only draw conclusions about that part.
QED.
For those who are curious about the labelling I used on the charts posted, I tag them from where I got them as a reference. For example, Trader666 was making a pont about a byzantine mess he named a chart. As you see it is now a byxzantine turd sort of thing and it isn't his.
What a copiously annotatd chart that is 6 1/2 hours long is, is in the eye of the beholder. I used it to over write a zig zag line of trades that an advanced intermediate would take. The person could take he trades as a consequence of knowing what is going on in the markets.
How different this is from finding an edge, predicting what the edge will do and betting on the market doing what is predicted. I don't find this to be like poler and gambling but it has characterisitics that depart from non probabilistic binary systems that are based oncertainty and sufficiency.
If you are looking for an edge, why annotate? If you are going to predict why annotate? If you are going to bet on the prdiction, why annotate? There is never a reason the annotate while using the CW type trading.
Many people espress the opinion that channels are drawn after the fact. They are betting that this is the case. do you think any of thse people ever feel they will lose the bet? No, they believe that they will never lose this bet.
What do people who annotate feel about these people who are "certain" that all channels are drawn after the fact? They are not concerned with these people since they are not affected.
Annotating a channel and projecting it into the future is the dream come true for a beginner who is learning.
This is how scoring works for PVT and this is how SCT works. Cahnnels determine the length of a trade.
ALL trader666 trades started on the BO of a prior channel (short) at point b where the short to long overlap stopped and the first volume suge began for the long channel. But his portfolio management caused all these treades to lose money. An average of X per share where the average was 16 to 20 cents.
