dmedin

Debbie downer

Look at yonder big'un 😘

Ooh Geoffrey! 💨

Put your tu-tu on Tom and have a wee boogie to this

Now we can sit back and enjoy missing out on hundreds of pounds of profit because we took out 1:1.5, after losing four times in a row

A beeg beezer Kethleen! 🤑

Dee-zhester!

No way, farty pants

Non-shensh, poopy pantsh

Oi noi, the base line wasn't support this time 😢

Risk it for a biscuit, Tutankhamun 👴

I think it's brown actually, sorry! 😮

*prrrrp!* Oh I say Geoffrey, what have you been eating 🤢

Sing us a new song, June Sarpong 👺 Don't feel good about that one! Didn't wait for a pullback before buying! But ... green line was up and cloud was green and blue was above orange 😮 Look how the orange base line was a support! 😮

Quite a smell, Isabelle 😘

*parp!* Oh Kathleen! So this doesn't work out -

What makes this even sh!tter and stupider is that we got out of the trade while it was still trending higher because of our arbitrary 1:1.5 ratio. What a cr*ck of utter sh!te

So if we only buy when conversion line crosses base line AND cloud ahead is green AND lagging span (green) is above price AND cloud then what happens when we miss the crossover e.g. because we're in bed asleep? Does that mean we sit out the entire trend? That sounds like f*king sh!t to me. In that case it would be necessary to trade a very short time frame to find a greater number of crossovers, but on a shorter time frame those crossovers are more likely to be fake. Long:

Yes, I missed the fact that the green line fell into the price action at trade 3 so that should have kept me from entering the trade.

Trade 2 long after it bounced from the conversion (blue) line. Bad idea. Trade 3 long after it bounced off the base (orange) line. Better, but nearly sh!t the bed. Maybe a 1:1.5 isn't a good idea and should just for conversion line to cross under the base line? Who the f*k knows?

I decided to sh!t-can this because the results in backtest were nothing like what I was getting when I tried it live. That really is mysterious, and I can only attribute it to some kind of hidden foresight on the historical data. Let's try something else. Hourly time frame using the Ichimoku. Trade 1 long after a pullback and subsequent resumption of uptrend. Result, a big beezer Kathleen 👺

I only needed to skim it. It's the usual boring predictable blindingly obvious sh!te.

Yes, I think you should reveal how many years you've been trading profitably because this would be more helpful than your 15 minute charts and your daily postings of information that everyone already sees in their trading platform. Why? Because nobody wants to up like you Tom, for FOUR YEARS working for IG for free, plugging at something that you have no realistic chance of winning - what a waste of time I know where the switch is. It is in selling training and books, and all the big trading names have done it. Most of them get most of their income from 'consulting' and 'mentoring' and 'providing thoughtful analysis to DailyFX podcasts and Reuters'.

Okay I'll comment since our money-making experts can't be bothered. You've got as reasonable a chance as any other. It is completely random whether your stop gets taken out or not. It's a complete gamble, but it's not an unreasonable gamble. Tomorrow could gap up beyond your stop and then drop straight below it. Hence, it is unpredictable and not a reliable way to make money going forward. I have a strong suspicion that anyone who tells you otherwise and starts talking about having a trading plan or backtesting an algorithm or scaling in and out is just telling you tired old bullsh!t that we've all heard a million times before