DislikedI am agree that for long run it is difficult to get the same good result without any good statistical proved data (which ever any idea/system we use). If i understand it correctly, this 9/10 result above can be applied to Forex world too, right ?? If yes, which TF will give the best result (i just predict that it is below H4, but which one is the best among H1 to M1 )Ignored
I see both similarities and differences between roulette and trading:
In both games there are underlying mechanics (fundamentals) that generate outcomes (technical analysis, if you like). In roulette, the underlying mechanics involve the physics provided by the croupier, wheel, ball, etc, and the outcome is the number spun. In trading, I have outlined some of the underlying mechanics here, and price is the outcome. All TA-based studies are ultimately derived from price, time and (occasionally) volume.
i.e. fundamental drivers --> price --> TA
Both are negative expectancy games by default. In roulette the payout amounts always favour the house by 37 to 36, while with trading the trader must contend with broker costs, that likewise affect every transaction.
In roulette, unless the physics provide an exploitable bias, the game is completely random, and no playing or betting system can reduce the house edge. Historical outcomes have no statistical significance, and hence analysing past trends of numbers is futile. Whereas with trading, the price movement is not a random walk, making it possible to gain an edge by studying past data using statistical or technical analysis. This is due to a number of repetitive factors like prevalent belief systems that create 'self fulfilling prophecies', the psychological behaviour of traders, and -- to whatever extent that it is possible -- manipulation by heavyweight players. I listed some symptoms of non-randomness in myth #22 here.
In both roulette and trading, an analysis of the underlying mechanics (fundamentals) gets the analyst one step nearer the 'real action'. Some institutional traders have expert knowledge and access to 'inside' information and techniques which give them a significant advantage over the average retail trader.
To answer your final question, in my opinion timeframe is largely irrelevant in trading. Although markets are not totally fractal in nature (see myth #13 in the above link), trader psychology/behaviour is such that price tends to follow similar accumulation --> breakout --> markup/down patterns in all time frames. Personally I prefer the longer timeframes for at least three reasons (alignment with macroeconomic factors; lower involvement requirement; relatively lower costs; ...), but there are successful intraday traders also. Intraday trading facilitates the big advantage of higher frequency, allowing gains to be compounded more rapidly.
I have left FF. Please don't expect replies to your posts.