Hi,
I recently have found a lot of video’s on youtube regarding the big shadow trading strategy. Has anyone back tested it before? Does it work on the H4? The video looks promising and its a simple setup, but not sure if I am missing something?
Any feedback will be appreciated.
Thanks
Steven
Yes, it works.
I haven’t seen the videos on Youtube - I’ve read the e-book on the system, by Walter Peters, who is incidentally the co-author, with Alex Nekritin, of rather a good book called [I]Naked Forex: High-Probability Techniques for Trading Without Indicators[/I] … and this “big shadow trade” [B][U]is[/U][/B], of course, a high-probability technique for trading without indicators.
It’s really just a variation of the “engulfing pin-bar at support/resistance” - and those are [I]certainly[/I] high-probability trades.
That may come across at first as a surprising assertion - but with a little thought, you can see that an “engulfing candle pattern” in one timeframe is going to be printed as a pin-bar in slightly longer time-frame - a good reminder that [U]highs and lows[/U] are [I]objective and factual[/I], whereas [U]opens and closes[/U] are subjective and user-defined. 
I would think that the only way people could get into trouble trading these would be by failing to stick to the rules and principles that Peters explains. (One of the potential problems with methods like this is that they don’t present many trading opportunities, and some people get impatient with them and start taking the “near-miss trades” which are, of course, [U]not[/U] such high-probability trades!). Or by using inappropriate position-sizing, or whatever. With sensible money-management, they’re profitable.
Again, please note that I haven’t seen the videos and am basing my comments on the book.
And welcome to the world of price action … 
(Edited to add: when I say that they’re profitable, I don’t mean that [I]every[/I] one will be a winning trade: naturally they produce some losers, too, like any “system” - but with an R:R ratio of 1.0, they ought to achieve 60-65% winners reliably enough, which of course is very good.)
Yes I saw it in that book and went to his youtube channel and found more about it haha, i enjoyed the book. He explains it well in the video. ( I hate reading 
) Once again thanks Lexy :)))
Ah, I see - I hadn’t realised it was [U]his[/U] Youtube channel: that should be a reliable source.
Well, please excuse my mentioning it, but that can [I]sometimes[/I] put you at a relative disadvantage, when it comes to learning to trade successfully.
In all my experience (although there are some exceptions, of course) the overall quality and reliability of video-“information” tends to fall [B][U]far[/U][/B] behind that contained in well-recommended, well-established, mainstream, orthodox trading textbooks, published by well-recommended, well-established, mainstream, orthodox publishers (because they’re always “peer-reviewed” and “quality controlled” before ever seeing the light of day, whereas online anyone can publish anything with no quality control at all, and much of what’s published is done - whether obviously or not - as part of marketing campaigns for further procuts/services rather than purely for [I]their own[/I] educational value.) Not trying to be a “downer” … but I’m just saying … :33:
Nah I hear you and I agree, i found the strat via the book and then looked into it, I just mean I dont like reading in general but do force myself to read specially when it comes to highly recommended books.
As a side note there is a thread on here about PA from the forex school, super long thread. is it worth working threw it all? I can link it if you dont know about it but im pretty sure you have been threw every thread on this forum haha.
I don’t know - sorry.
I think you mean Johnathon Fox’s thread, of over 21,000 posts in length?
I didn’t get beyond the first post.
I don’t read old threads whose purpose was [I]so clearly[/I] promotional: it’s just my perspective, of course, but I regard that as “spam”, even though the moderators here (very strangely, in my opinion, and clearly in huge contrast to those elsewhere) apparently don’t.
It’s just a free way for people to promote their businesses and websites, rather unsubtly, [I]without[/I] paying for an advertisement, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
It may still contain some perfectly valid content, for all I know, but this relates to [B][U]exactly[/U][/B] the point I was making in my post just above: in a field of activity in which overall success-rates are so very low, I think it’s [I]really[/I] worthwhile to get one’s information from people who [B][U]aren’t[/U][/B] using the “information” they present as a way to sell/promote any [I]other[/I] products/service, and Johnathon Fox very clearly was, when he compiled that thread. I wouldn’t expect much objectivity, myself, compared with all the other sources of price action information I’ve mentioned elsewhere. I [I]may[/I], of course, still be mistaken (but long-term experience predicates that the odds are hugely in my favour, in saying this - it’s a “high-probability trade”, if you like to put it that way! ).
My point is simply that there’s [U]no shortage[/U] of good, reliable sources of information about price action trading which have been published [I]on their own merits[/I], having been [B][U]independently[/U][/B] peer-reviewed and quality-controlled beforehand, [I]rather than being self-published as attempt to promote something else[/I].
I know this point can come across to some people as a little pedantic, but I’m entirely “unashamed” of making it repeatedly, because I believe it’s a pretty important one that actually has a [I]significant[/I] effect on many people’s overall chances of success.
Thanks a lot, it makes sense.
Yes you miss one interesting but crucial thing: nobody will share their bread with you. If they know how to beat the market, could you cite any reason why it should appear as free posting on youtube?
Thanks.