Chart Patterns - tosh?

[trendie]

what about self-full-filled-prophecies ?

if enough people believe in a pattern, and they trade it AS IF were true, the force of so many convictions makes the pattern BECOME true.
I think something similar was said about Fib-numbers.

If enough players see a 1-2-3 ( for example ), and identify the place where they think they should buy/sell, then the sheer numbers of different traders arriving at the same conclusion creates the very support/resistance/breakouts that we see.

Chart patterns are real because other people trade them into becoming real.

 

[roguetrader]

Split,



I am obviously not being as clear as I should. Your "ODDS" or more correctly your probabilities of making money are not definitively 50%, just that with a random entry your win/loss ratio will be approximately 50%

This I would probably agree with, as I never sought to discuss the merrits of random entries, I have not given it much thought, but on the surface it looks reasonable. It would be my belief, without meaning to undermine anyone more experienced at such things, that random entries based purely on a chart pattern and no other considerations would have a poor outcome, which is why in a previous post I stressed the need for confirmation.

Now, by utilising a methodology, viz chart patterns, or technical indicators, level2, you may find that the methodology improves the expectancy from 50%. Nothing new here.

Up until now 50% expectancy was the fact. it has been stated and emphasized in most of your posts. It was probably mainly this that I have reason to disagree with you. Since up until now your calculation of expectancy serves no purpose other than a point of arguement. For example looking back on the road crossing analogy, Your method of calculating expectancy is meaningless, it tells us nothing of the eventual outcome. Clearly one outcome is more likely to be favourable than the other and yet this is not reflected in your expectancy. You might as well say the expectancy is BLUE. (yes I know that is a meaningless statement, but as useful as the 50/50 expectancy in this case)

If you were to compare a triangle breakout with a Level2 buy signal and you had 100 examples of each for the last 10yrs, or 1000 examples in all through a variety of market conditions, which one gives you the most consistent and durable results?

Why is it consistent and durable? Is it unknown, limited access, would the results change if the reasons for the results changed? If and when you know the answers to these and other questions, then you need to ask, how often can I find tradeable examples, will the frequency of opportunity mandate modifications in my position size and stoploss levels to make it profitable?

Within the daytrading and short-term trading horizon traders are competing with each other, and the larger $value traders can dominate due to size in short time frames, pushing price in their direction certainly enough for scalping purposes. So you may be right, and still lose money......a galling outcome.

Therefore money management serves an additional purpose, which is to safeguard your position, not just your capital, when the probabilities are being distorted by scalping moves designed to break patterns without the commensurate size to safeguard them.
To ride out adverse moves requires some true understanding of your methodology, without which you will become a statistic that is often quoted regarding daytraders.

Cheers d998

I have no arguement with this, to me it is a statement of the obvious. If it were easy everybody would be doing it.

 

[Splitlink]

Split,

Now, by utilising a methodology, viz chart patterns, or technical indicators, level2, you may find that the methodology improves the expectancy from 50%. Nothing new here. What should be considered however is the consistency and durability of your methodologies probability.

Nothing new here, you say, but that is what TA is all about, isn't it? No one, apart from a pure gambler, is going to randomly enter a trade without some form of proven, statistical evidence that his entry is likely to have a favourable outcome. I would say, based on the well known saying that 90% of traders lose money, that the probabality of their trades going wrong are much lower than 50%. However, the remaining 10%, of which we all hope to aspire, must be better than that..

Cheers Split

 

[ducati998]

Rogue,
Actually its not a completely pointless exercise at all.

Up until now 50% expectancy was the fact. it has been stated and emphasized in most of your posts. It was probably mainly this that I have reason to disagree with you. Since up until now your calculation of expectancy serves no purpose other than a point of arguement. For example looking back on the road crossing analogy, Your method of calculating expectancy is meaningless, it tells us nothing of the eventual outcome. Clearly one outcome is more likely to be favourable than the other and yet this is not reflected in your expectancy. You might as well say the expectancy is BLUE. (yes I know that is a meaningless statement, but as useful as the 50/50 expectancy in this case)

The relevance is that by choosing to "DAYTRADE" with technical analysis, you have chosen a low expectancy strategy. Why not choose a high expectancy strategy, low P/E stocks have a higher expectancy, around 75% I believe, then with added analysis, or screening, the probabilities will rise further. This to me makes more logical sense than choosing a low expectancy strategy.

Part of the attractiveness of daytrading is that it has this mystique attached to it, even the term gunslingers evokes this macho image. The sad fact of the matter, excluding a select few talented individuals, or well capitalised professional traders, short-term trading is a losing prospect for the majority.

This I would probably agree with, as I never sought to discuss the merrits of random entries, I have not given it much thought, but on the surface it looks reasonable. It would be my belief, without meaning to undermine anyone more experienced at such things, that random entries based purely on a chart pattern and no other considerations would have a poor outcome, which is why in a previous post I stressed the need for confirmation.

Where as an alternate strategy with a higher expectancy would show a higher profit with a random entry, irrespective of confirmation. A simple diversification operation added to a random selection of low P/E stocks raises the expectancy to approximately 85%

The additional problem with daytrading is that of exposure. The way to make money and generate wealth is to generate a return on your total funds available. If you are daytrading, who here will use 100% of available funds in a single trade? If no-one, how many days are required to expose your trading bank 100%? What is the average return in per cent of your %capital exposed? I suspect the figures will be low. This is because the probabilites of your set-ups do not inspire confidence...........you can lambast me with Level2 blah blah, but until you are comfortable placing lets say 33% of your bank on every set-up you are presented with, actions speak louder than words. How many positions can you have open at one time? Again the real good guys might go to 4/5, but after that it becomes a handful.

In contrast, the low P/E strategy, you can diversify your holdings to 20+, expose your entire trading bank, and have ample time to think about your trades. Now I do not trade a low P/E strategy, I simply use it as an example, there are ample stats available for your own research and verification.

Nothing new here, you say, but that is what TA is all about, isn't it? No one, apart from a pure gambler, is going to randomly enter a trade without some form of proven, statistical evidence that his entry is likely to have a favourable outcome. I would say, based on the well known saying that 90% of traders lose money, that the probabality of their trades going wrong are much lower than 50%. However, the remaining 10%, of which we all hope to aspire, must be better than that..

Unfortunately I have seen the amount of work some so called traders have put in, and it is inadequate. This thread was started by asking the reliability of chart patterns. Here is a question for you.

New High breakouts.
1...what is their average % success rate in the decades; 1970- 1979, 1980-1990, 1991-2001
2...what qualitative conditions affected them
3...what quantitative conditions affected them

Of course feel free to choose your own criteria, this is just an example, or use them and then you can tell me how many traders you feel will undertake research in their trading.......very few I suspect.

Cheers d998

 

[Splitlink]

Rogue,

The additional problem with daytrading is that of exposure. The way to make money and generate wealth is to generate a return on your total funds available. If you are daytrading, who here will use 100% of available funds in a single trade? If no-one, how many days are required to expose your trading bank 100%? What is the average return in per cent of your %capital exposed? I suspect the figures will be low.

That is very true. That kind of money making is very risky in comparison with others- no doubt about it! This poster has tried and failed with day trading. I am now a confirmed share trader and that is for at least overnight and, probably, several days.

Split

 

[DaveJB]

New High breakouts.
1...what is their average % success rate in the decades; 1970- 1979, 1980-1990, 1991-2001
2...what qualitative conditions affected them
3...what quantitative conditions affected them

Some of that you can check on my website, I've tested a variety of signals via P&F going back to 1987 or so and reported them in my 'newsletters'. As for (2) and (3) - given the markets are subject to probably hundreds of factors, these questions strike me as easily framed but meaningless exercises - one factor you might investigate is whether the signal is given when the share is outperforming or underperforming the market - some of my stats look at that. A big factor is going to be the exit strategy - technical exits or stop loss? There are HUNDREDS of factors involved in making the market what it is, attempting to quantify all factors is fruitless, and being a somewhat chaotic system adding too many factors into the mix in the mistaken belief it improves accuracy of forecast is counterproductive and will tend to increase the deviation from what actually occurs.

So what point (2) and (3)? For that matter what does the reliability of breakouts in 1970 -79 etc have to do with today's market? I can see the point in splitting stock market history up into segments that run from start to finish in bull or bear markets, but 1990 - 99 isn't a period I'd choose ... 88 to 1 Jan 2000 might make sense, or perhaps 95 - 2000 as the slope increased - why would you assume that it made sense to test a signal against whole decades of data, I'd have thought comparing returns from bull and bear markets made rather more sense?

For what it's worth I HAVE undertaken a significant level of research into TA, I was not willing to use it unless I could satisfy myself it worked, and I did that... debunking some ideas (at least to my own satisfaction) enroute, but finding others that still had merit. More to the point so have a lot of others here - have you spent several years researching TA too? I spend upwards of 50 - 60 hours a week studying the markets over and above any time spent watching them, I've done that for the past 5 years (I don't count the time I spent learning to analyse fundamentals prior to that), I never expected it would be easy. I think I've outlasted a number of people who started when I did, perhaps they didn't work as hard at it?

Part of the attractiveness of daytrading is that it has this mystique attached to it, even the term gunslingers evokes this macho image.

Oh P-L-E-A-S-E My MONEY is being risked here, I do not do this because I have some childish idea it's macho, you really should avoid using cliches like this - the trader in any timeframe requires the tools to do the job, the knowledge to make good decisions, and the temperament to trade it - nervous types should not trade 1 minute bars. That just means that those suited to TA in short timeframes form a small subset of all traders, many (doubtless) who try it are predominantly psychologically ill equipped for the game. 'Gunslingers' don't last very long. I doubt very many surviving daytraders view themselves in this outdated manner, I would suggest the image was generated by the media rather than actual traders.

Trading is a pastime that has no entry requirements, but those who treat it in cavalier fashion will lose. In daytrading they'll do it faster, but they'll do the same as long term investors as well unless they accept they need to work at it. I doubt that the PE ratio will help in either timeframe.

TA is about using the charts to map crowd psychology to a large extent, looking to predict what the crowd will do in future from what the crowd has done so far ... most TA is relatively simple (when explained by those who have spotted it <g>) 'lots of people bought here then the price tanked, when the price gets back to here they can be spooked into selling' and so forth. It's observing psychology in crowds, and sometimes a case of observing big money manipulating crowd psychology.
Dave

 

[DaveJB]

By the way,
apologies for more psychology ...
Also none of that is intended as a personal 'go' at Ducati, merely as a spirited rebuttal of his arguments <g>
Dave

 

[ducati998]

Dave,
That you have researched your own methodology and continue to do so is commendable.

So what point (2) and (3)? For that matter what does the reliability of breakouts in 1970 -79 etc have to do with today's market? I can see the point in splitting stock market history up into segments that run from start to finish in bull or bear markets, but 1990 - 99 isn't a period I'd choose ... 88 to 1 Jan 2000 might make sense, or perhaps 95 - 2000 as the slope increased - why would you assume that it made sense to test a signal against whole decades of data, I'd have thought comparing returns from bull and bear markets made rather more sense?

TA is about using the charts to map crowd psychology to a large extent, looking to predict what the crowd will do in future from what the crowd has done so far ... most TA is relatively simple

And therein you have answered your own question. Human psychology does not change from era to era. The 1925-1929 bull market and the speculative excesses were duplicated in the 1995-2000 bull market, even down to the new era terminology.
The reason that I am interested in decades of data rather than cherrypicking specific timeframes is just to eliminate some bias.

T/A is simplistic in design, difficult in execution. T/A seeks to profit from sentiment and momentum. There is no pretense at understanding structure and function of issues, and utilising quantitative methods to generate returns, it is simply by anticipating what the short term direction will be, getting on at the right time, and getting off at the right time. In this context you are competing directly with your own kind....other speculators.

For what it's worth I HAVE undertaken a significant level of research into TA, I was not willing to use it unless I could satisfy myself it worked, and I did that... debunking some ideas (at least to my own satisfaction) enroute, but finding others that still had merit. More to the point so have a lot of others here - have you spent several years researching TA too? I spend upwards of 50 - 60 hours a week studying the markets over and above any time spent watching them, I've done that for the past 5 years (I don't count the time I spent learning to analyse fundamentals prior to that), I never expected it would be easy. I think I've outlasted a number of people who started when I did, perhaps they didn't work as hard at it?

More to the point, do you believe that I have done any study?

Oh P-L-E-A-S-E My MONEY is being risked here, I do not do this because I have some childish idea it's macho, you really should avoid using cliches like this - the trader in any timeframe requires the tools to do the job, the knowledge to make good decisions, and the temperament to trade it - nervous types should not trade 1 minute bars. That just means that those suited to TA in short timeframes form a small subset of all traders, many (doubtless) who try it are predominantly psychologically ill equipped for the game. 'Gunslingers' don't last very long. I doubt very many surviving daytraders view themselves in this outdated manner, I would suggest the image was generated by the media rather than actual traders.

Here I think we will have to agree to disagree. This board alone has any number of threads asking .....is it true you can make money?....how much money?......how fast can I make my money? .......can I give up my day job?
Just because you know the truth of the matter, you have mistakenly assumed that all visitors to this board are experienced, seasoned traders, who understand that this is a tough and unforgiving business, not a ticket to fast wealth.

TA is about using the charts to map crowd psychology to a large extent, looking to predict what the crowd will do in future from what the crowd has done so far ... most TA is relatively simple (when explained by those who have spotted it <g>) 'lots of people bought here then the price tanked, when the price gets back to here they can be spooked into selling' and so forth. It's observing psychology in crowds, and sometimes a case of observing big money manipulating crowd psychology.

You have described what the vast majority believe charts show. And in as far as you have gone you are correct. What you have not addressed, is what they don't show, and this is far more interesting in many cases than what they do show.

Cheers d998

 

[ducati998]

Dave,
Almost forgot,

There are HUNDREDS of factors involved in making the market what it is, attempting to quantify all factors is fruitless, and being a somewhat chaotic system adding too many factors into the mix in the mistaken belief it improves accuracy of forecast is counterproductive and will tend to increase the deviation from what actually occurs.

Agreed, however it is not my place to dictate to someone what may or may not be important. It is up to each individual to decide what has relevance, I purposely left the choice as wide as possible.

Cheers d998

 

[SOCRATES]

There are several ways to skin a rabbit, both easy and difficult, but what ultimately matters is neither of these ~ it has to be the right way, or not at all. This is because you will not and can not get a second chance to rectify any blunder made. The world of trading can be a very cruel world indeed for this reason alone.

 

[JumpOff]

There are several ways to skin a rabbit, both easy and difficult, but what ultimately matters is neither of these ~ it has to be the right way, or not at all. This is because you will not and can not get a second chance to rectify any blunder made. The world of trading can be a very cruel world indeed for this reason alone.

Cruel, or just pitilessly indifferent? I've never thought the market paid any attention to lil' ol' me, one way or the other. And although I don't make many gaining trades yet, and when I do, I rarely think about the fact that it is at someone else's expense. - I'm just happy to do my best, get mine, and then wait for the next setup..

Certainly you are correct in your previous statements (on other threads) that there is little in the average life to prepare one for the experience of trading.
JO

 

[SOCRATES]

Hello Jumpoff, both, actually, since you manage to put it so well. Here I am still jetlagged, fractured sleep patterns, happens every time I come to visit you lot over there across the pond,
Just waiting for the European markets to open, in a state of instant readiness, Ha ! Ha ! HA !

 

[DaveJB]

I thought you were up a bit early Soc. Personally I always go to bed after visiting the land of the free, I feel much more civilised the next day...<g>

Yes D998 - I wouldn't disagree that the majority don't do the work and don't learn a lot, I'm arguing that TA does work, but if you don't put the effort in you won't be able to do it effectively. The fact that so many dance around the edges hoping that trading every Head&Shoulders pattern will make them a winner doesn't stop TA being effective as a trading tool - spades are still effective tools for digging, if 99/100 miners held 'em by the wrong end it's a reflection on the users' competence, not the tool itself.

You appear to argue that TA doesn't work, or isn't an effective tool, then to use the fact that most people fail when using at as some sort of proof ... that people misuse, misunderstand, totally c**k up TA is not a reflection on TA, it is a reflection on the users who can't be bothered to learn to use it - it's a logical non-sequiter to argue against TA by citing what people do with it, and it's this that I am arguing about. I'll happily agree with you that people make a mess of it, but then they do the same with fundamentals, heck they even make a pigs ear of astrology!

I am NOT contending for an instant that TA is suitable for anyone and everyone, on the contrary it takes a lot of effort and most people are simply not equipped for that. The high failure rate, in my opinion, is very much in line with the high percentage of users unwilling to put the donkey work in, rather than an inherent flaw in what they were attempting to master. (With the aid of one slim volume they were prepared to spend all weekend reading).

Dave

 

[JumpOff]

I'll happily agree with you that people make a mess of it, but then they do the same with fundamentals, heck they even make a pigs ear of astrology!

Watch it! , buster.
JO

 

[ducati998]

Dave,
Really we have to questions requiring an answer;
1....Do people study hard enough, the components of T/A to make it a profitable enterprise?
2...Is T/A an effective tool for creating wealth from financial markets?

The answer to the first would seem to be a generalised no.
The answer to the second, would be open to debate. My feeling, or opinion, would be in the negative. The reason for this is that technical analysis at its heart is seeking to time very precisely sentiment, manifested as momentum.

As such, all setups are qualitative in their approach. The concept of probability in this context is to my mind nebulous, but probabilities are given as verification endlessly in support of double tops, bottoms, breakouts, etc.

You appear to argue that TA doesn't work, or isn't an effective tool, then to use the fact that most people fail when using at as some sort of proof

Well yes exactly, if it worked well as a tool then the majority of people should be happy and satisfied with the results. That they are not, would indicate that the tool is ineffective. Using your spade analogy, given basic instruction the vast majority will utilise a spade correctly. This however is not true for T/A, even with all the books, courses, private tuition, the vast majority fail, and fail horribly.

The part answer to this is of course that the intrinsic logic of T/A is fatally flawed, compounded with a very high level of competition.

Cheers d998

 

[JumpOff]

Well yes exactly, if it worked well as a tool then the majority of people should be happy and satisfied with the results. That they are not, would indicate that the tool is ineffective. Using your spade analogy, given basic instruction the vast majority will utilise a spade correctly. This however is not true for T/A, even with all the books, courses, private tuition, the vast majority fail, and fail horribly.

I think the spade analogy isn't quite good enough, though Dave is on the right track. I see using TA effectivley as more akin to learning to play a difficult instrument like the violin, the oboe, bagpipes.
Even with all the books, courses, private tuition, the vast majority fail, and fail horribly- but we don't blame the instruments. We acknowledge that getting the most out of the instrument requires determination, lots of hands on practice, and it helps to have a little gift for the art of it.

Musicians who develop their skill to the expert level really don't have any doubt about whether they know what they are doing. And probably don't have much patience for those who say, "but it's soo hard!", or "it must not be a valid activity, because so few people can readily master it."

I expect the same is true of those who master TA.
JO

 

[SOCRATES]

Actually you are right and I had not thought of it in this way. The most common problem that besets people is dealilng with a two edged sword kind of situation. Unfavourable results tend to dishearten and favourable tend to elate.When the market delivers a mixture of these two to start with the recipient is baffled. No one in his right mind wilfully puts himself out to fail.

The favourable results tend to mitigate the opposite, putting the recipient in a mental state of false security, which is a false premise. What has to be done is to clock why it is that the unfavourable results are so. In many cases it occurs that market conditions suddenly change just at the wrong moment. This can be infuriating and the recipient's first reaction is that he is being singled out for punishment. There is a strong emotive drive to take it personally.

It is a matter of hardening one's resolve to carry out scupulous post mortems and to begin to act in accordance with what those post mortems reveal. This I know is very difficult. Any form of self criticism is very difficult but solace can be taken also from the fact that blunders committed are not always the fault of the blunderer. There are many many traps to be avoided.

These traps exist because reading a chart is not like looking at a blueprint. The conclusios derived are not pre cast. In this regard because what is needed is beyond the ability to logically deduce and reason, although the foundation of chart reading relies upon the application of logical deduction. It has to be taken to a higher level of awareness. In this higher level of awareness lies the intent. It is the ability to suss the intent which is the difficult part. The easy part is the mechanical, now we are getting to the nitty gritty of chart reading.

As I have said before, the danger is that you can look at a chart and see in it what you want to see. In order to begin to close the gap on this failing you have to try to look further than what the chart is presenting at face value. This is where the work really begins. This is why it can be described as an art form. It is an art form with a difference, because it contains an element of logic. But the way this logic serves to misdirect the viewer is the trap. You must learn to look beyond what is presented, in order to be able to interpret it correctly.

 

[DaveJB]

Hi JO,
well, given that Astrology seemingly manages to shrug off the sudden addition of extra planets I hope you'll excuse a physicist adopting a pose not unlike Ducati's on TA <g> On the other hand I acknowledge your metaphor is more apt than mine on bagpipes....

Ducati - okay, I think we're largely in agreement on pt (1). Point 2 we'll just have to disagree on - not getting good results from something MAY be the result of a design flaw in the tool, but I would contend that where the prospective tool users have overwhelmingly decided not to complete (or even start, in most cases) the 'how to use it' course I don't agree it is the fault of the tool. It may be that the 'how to use it' course is very hard, but last time I looked we still let people practise brain surgery despite the appalling pass rate when feeding illiterate school leavers into brain surgery school.
(As Monty Python once phrased it - near enough - it may only be your old bread knife and kitchen table, but never forget we are dealing with the sanctity of human life'.)

Soc's bang on here too - we often see what we are looking to find, it is not the fault of the chart, it is our capacity to persuade ourselves that something vaguely resembling our target is actually visible. I won't point the thread out, but coincidentally I was looking at an old thread starting in 2003 or so last night and somebody was illustrating up and downtrends - the uptrend had rising bottoms and flat highs... it struck me instantly that (A) The author had been looking for a chart showing rising bottoms and found one, and had therefore not actually recorded mentally that the tops were flat... the uptrend was actually a triangle, tnere was no uptrend at all. (B) This tied in very nicely with the start of this thread where I was disinclined to accept 2 points make a triangle - I 'spotted' the triangle mentioned in (A) in a heartbeat.... it had 2 reversal points <g>

Perception, ah, there's the rub!
Dave

 

[ducati998]

JO,

Musicians who develop their skill to the expert level really don't have any doubt about whether they know what they are doing. And probably don't have much patience for those who say, "but it's soo hard!", or "it must not be a valid activity, because so few people can readily master it."

On the surface your argument would seem to be acceptable. However, there are as with most analogies some points of departure that invalidate the central point. Trading is DIRECT competition, speculator Vs speculator, musicians generally do not compete directly against each other........however when they do, there is only 1 winner, everyone else loses.

This is the nature of speculation, a small % of winners taking a large% of the money. Therefore, if competing, would you not wish to have extreme confidence in your ability to compete to win?

This question is of central relevance,........why do you believe, sitting at home with your computer, any additional data feeds etc, that you can beat the house, on ground of their own choosing, utilising a system that competes on SENTIMENT and MOMENTUM?

This leads directly into INTENT, which most definitely is not displayed in a price chart, yet is central to understanding what is happening in an issue

.

This I know is very difficult. Any form of self criticism is very difficult but solace can be taken also from the fact that blunders committed are not always the fault of the blunderer. There are many many traps to be avoided.

And to avoid the traps you must first accept that even though you cannot see the traps currently, you must still look for the traps regardless. The failsafe sign of being caught by unseen traps are losing money on a regular basis, or failure to grow the bank, ........staying at roughly breakeven

.

Perception, ah, there's the rub!

Quite so, perceptual bias is a trap, one of many, this at least is easily managed, others are more subtle.

Cheers d998

 

[ChartMan]

Maybe it was me JB....
I've read a lot of this thread to see where it had gone. Lot of interesting stuff, much of it removed from the point, perhaps, but still interesting .
Looking back to early days, I thought TA was something cast in stone. Today, some of it is still cast in stone, but there has to be doubts as to whether it's concrete or sandstone. :cheesy: It IS an artform, but one can only apply that artform with experience.Remember your early attempts at painting at school? Were you good? probably not..... This artform requires that you have some idea of what you are allowed to do. What works, what doesn't. What goes with what and what doesn't. Trendlines, S/R lines , trying to draw triangles etc. is well documented. Sadly , it is not documented very well. It provides the basic theory and pupils are driven ( allowed) to believe that these things are cast in stone.
From a beginners perspective, I see attempts at TA being quite counter productive. They have read all the books and are just itching to find all those formations in their first chart. This must go on for some considerable time.Is this why the user fails?
For my part, I always try to find both sides of the equation. There has to be two sides to every story. Without that, there is no market so there HAS to be two sides.
Someone who does not have the experience of a particular instrument can only generalise their approach to TA.Once you are familiar with an instrument, you can modify your analysis based on that experience.
Finally, the key to success, especially in the short term, is to learn what to do when all your 'expert' analysis goes pear shaped.It goes without saying that we all get it wrong. How wrong and how often should diminish with experience.
Just my thoughts.....