In 2002, when I started traing the markets I had developed two-three templates which gave me very high success rates [>80%].
From 2002 to present, I have studied a lot - a lot - and have used various techniques including Elliot & Gann in my trading and reports. [With not as high success rate, but then I was still learning]
But now, as I try and refine my trading systme and turn it into a mechanical trading system, my template is starting to look more like what it did in 2002!
I am very surprised, totally aghast. I have done nothing new! All my interim efforts were just not required?!
Becoz all these studies have not ADDED anything but are just SUBSTANTIATING what I perhaps always knew. Of course, there are new tricks and tweaks in the bag, but I am amazed at how the template which were consisted nothing more than few indicators (cleverly used, if I may say) is more robust than many exotic theories I have used there.
More I am trying to refine the methods, more I am moving towards '2002' template. '2002' had Bolingers, MAs, MACD, RSI, PSAR and ROC.
From 2002 to present, I have studied a lot - a lot - and have used various techniques including Elliot & Gann in my trading and reports. [With not as high success rate, but then I was still learning]
But now, as I try and refine my trading systme and turn it into a mechanical trading system, my template is starting to look more like what it did in 2002!
I am very surprised, totally aghast. I have done nothing new! All my interim efforts were just not required?!
Becoz all these studies have not ADDED anything but are just SUBSTANTIATING what I perhaps always knew. Of course, there are new tricks and tweaks in the bag, but I am amazed at how the template which were consisted nothing more than few indicators (cleverly used, if I may say) is more robust than many exotic theories I have used there.
More I am trying to refine the methods, more I am moving towards '2002' template. '2002' had Bolingers, MAs, MACD, RSI, PSAR and ROC.
Comments
Post a Comment