I have no particular disagreement here with you or W-L-D. Every little bit helps. Victor Sperandeo, in his books, makes a very good argument along the same lines as you do, namely, that if one doesn’t have strict rules for charting, this may lead to projecting into the charts one’s own biases – and to costly errors.
On the other hand, trading based on pattern recognition is still, to a large extent, an Art form. If it would be fully quantifiable and “scientific”, then, having studied TA and having obtained proper tools and training, a fellow would be assured of success. Not one person is, however.
Elliott waves reflect ebbs and tides in public mood, and those moods “pulsate” in fractals. It is thought that EW works best when applied to indices or other highly liquid and preferably emotionally charged markets. Thinly traded stocks and markets are not as much subject to changes in the mood of the crowd, and EW loses its advantage there.
Now, can one reasonably expect moves in the mood of the crowd to be ‘geometrically’ perfect? Can’t those moves be reflective of market’s intentions – and valid – without being ‘perfect’?
Perhaps, for EACH individual trader it IS vital to have strict rules, for otherwise one can never have a method, and one can never practice effective money management. If you have rules, which work for YOU, your account is likely to do fine. General rules are important, they make communication possible, they represent important guidelines… but the success or failure, ultimately, are not in communications, but… inside the individual. |
