Is there a candlestick pattern that guarantees any kind of future profit?
I would go even farther than Victor's answer.  There is little evidence that candlestick patterns and technical analysis in general have any predictive power.   Even if they did in the past, of which there is some evidence, in modern times they are so easy to do on computers that if they worked algorithmic traders would have scanned almost all traded stocks and bought/sold the stock before you even had a chance to look at the graph. While the best technical traders who are very good at quickly using pattern recognition across many indicators as Victor mentioned might be able to add some advantage.  The odds that a pattern so simple to code such as Bullish Engulfing would have predictive power is tiny. I love technical analysis, and use candlesticks as part of my technical analysis system for trading mutual funds in my 401K. However, I would never use a candlestick chart on its own.  I use combination of candlesticks, 2 different EMAs, MACD, bollinger bands, RSI and hand drawn trend lines that I constantly tweak.  That's about as much data input as I can handle, but it is possible to graph it all at once and see it at a glance if you have the right trading platform. My approach is very personal, not very aggressive, and took me years to develop. But it's fairly effective - 90% + of my trades are winners. The big advantage of technical analysis is that it forces you to create repeatable rules around which you base your trading.  A lot of the time I have little attention at all on what fund I am trading or why it is doing well in that particular market condition. It's basically irrelevant as the technical system tells when to buy and sell, and stops you trying to second guess whether housing, chemicals, gold or asian tigers are is doing well right now. If you don't keep to your own rules, you have only yourself to blame. This keeps you from blaming the market, which is completely out of your control. I explain many of my trades with anotated graphs at http://neurotrade.blogspot.com/ I did a historical analysis a few years back of all well-known candlestick patterns against my database of 5 years worth of 1-minute resolution data of all FTSE100 shares.  There wasn't a single pattern that showed even a 1% gain with 60% reliability.  Unfortunately I don't have spread data other than for a handful of days where I recorded live prices rather than minutely summaries, but my suspicion is that most of the time you wouldn't even earn back the spread on such a trade. "By definition, there are no guaranteed profits. There are sometimes arbitrage opportunities, which are more accessible to some investors than others. In this case, I'm not referring to HFT as that is covered elsewhere on this site already.  At certain times, in certain equity markets, candlestick charts were used for profitable trading, though more for trades set up for weeks or months, not day trading. I am referring specifically to Nikkei 225 equities, in the 1980's and 1990's. I don't know why it was effective, and it hasn't worked for me since then. I recommend reading and heeding this answer. Some people DO use technical analysis (see ""TA is not..."" section) as a primary trading strategy, but they are not going to divulge their methods, not here nor anywhere else." John Person has a pattern called the High Close Doji that is probably the most reliable signal in the world of candle patterns. I would check out Candle Stick and Pivot Point Trade Triggers. It all I use in trading stocks + forex. Nothing is guaranteed - candlesticks are not crystal balls nor is any part of technical analysis. Candlestick patterns used correctly and in combination with other western technical indicators can increase the probability of a trade going into the derived direction, but they are not a guarantee - which is why you should always use stop losses with your candlestick or any trading. In saying that, another candlestick pattern that can provide high probability trades is the Doji, or a combination of Dojis in a row at a market extreme. Note that both Engulfing patterns and Dojis work best at price extremes (highs and lows) and in combination with other technical indicators such as an overbought momentum indicator at a market high, or an oversold momentum indicator at a market low. EDIT - An Example Here is a sample trade I placed on the 17th October and am currently 15.6% in profit on. See the chart below as it shows taking the trade on the open of the following day after a bullish engulfing pattern appeared at the bottom of a downtrend on the 16th in combination with the Slow Stochastic crossing over in the oversold region (below 20%). I would consider this a high probability trade and have placed an initial stop loss at 10% below my open price in case the trade went against me. As the price moved up I moved the 10% stop loss up as a trailing stop loss. My profit target is set at 25% or $4.00. A good poker player lowers the bet on the downside and increases it on the up, by 3 to 10 times. They'll win, and then when the mood swings, generally 3 -5 consecutive downs, it`s time to reduce the bet back to 1. I gambled for a year fulltime - a guest of the house you might say, and I managed to make a living using this system.
"Yes, of course there have been studies on this.  This is no more than a question about whether the options are properly priced. (If properly priced, then your strategy will not make money on average before transaction costs and will lose once transaction costs are included.  If you could make money using your strategy, on average, then the market should - and generally will - make an adjustment in the option price to compensate.) The most famous studies on this were conducted by Black and Scholes and then by Merton. This work won the Nobel Prize in 1995. Although the Black-Scholes (or Black-Scholes-Merton) equation is so well known now that people may forget it, they didn't just sit down one day and write and equation that they thought was cool. They actually derived the equation based on market factors. Beyond this ""pioneering"" work, you've got at least two branches of study.  Academics have continued to study option pricing, including but not limited to revisions to the original Black-Scholes model, and hedge funds / large trading house have ""quants"" looking at this stuff all of the time.  The former, you could look up if you want. The latter will never see the light of day because it's proprietary. If you want specific references, I think that any textbook for a quantitative finance class would be a fine place to start.  I wouldn't be surprised if you actually find your strategy as part of a homework problem. This is not to say, by the way, that I don't think you can make money with this type of trade, but your strategy will need to include more information than you've outlined here.  Choosing which information and getting your hands on it in a timely manner will be the key." True, but the number of investors who are successful with this strategy is negligible. You are basically just trading return for volatility. A well built portfolio will be better than trying to time the market, at least historically. "SECTION | CONTENT :--|:-- Title | ""High Profit Trades found with Candlestick Breakout Patterns"" - Stephen Bigalow Description | Originally presented on July 10, 2012.    For more information on Steve Bigalow's Candle Profit System for MetaStock visit http://www.metastock.com/products/thirdparty/?3PC-ADD-CPS  Everyone wishes they got into the fast moving stock that jumped up $25 in a month. Candlestick Signals not only identify these potential movers -- they help you identify if there is still time to participate in the move!  In this live webinar Steve will show you: Which signals produce the Breakout Patterns How to per... Length | 1:23:12           ****   ^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^[Info](https://www.reddit.com/u/video_descriptionbot) ^| ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=video_descriptionbot&amp;subject=Feedback) ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)" Why wouldn't you expect a long-term profit?  Say you buy 100 shares of company X, selling for$1/share today.  You hold it for 20 years, after which it's worth $10/share (in inflation-adjusted dollars).  So you've made a profit, only making two trades (buy & sell).  What the algorithmic traders have done with short-term trades during those 20 years is irrelevant to you. Now expand the idea.  You want some diversification, so instead of one stock, you buy a bit of all the stocks on whatever index interests you, and you just hold them for the same 20 years.  How has what the short-term traders done in the intervening time affected you? "Yes there is, it is called a One-Cancels-the-Other Order (OCO). Investopedia defines a OCO order as: Definition of 'One-Cancels-the-Other Order - OCO' A pair of orders stipulating that if one order is executed, then the   other order is automatically canceled. A one-cancels-the-other order   (OCO) combines a stop order with a limit order on an automated trading   platform. When either the stop or limit level is reached and the order   executed, the other order will be automatically canceled. Seasoned   traders use OCO orders to mitigate risk. I use CMC Markets in Australia, and they allow free conditional and OCO orders either when initially placing a buy order or after already buying a stock. See the Place New Order box below:  Once you have selected a stock to buy, the number of shares you want to buy and at what price you can place up to 3 conditional orders. The first condition is a ""Place order if..."" conditional order. Here you can place a condition that your buy order will only be placed onto the market if that condition is met first.  Say the stock last traded at $9.80 and you only want to place your order the next day if the stock price moves above the current resistance at $10.00. So you would Place order if Price is at or above $10.00. So if the next day the price moves up to $10 or above your order will be placed onto the market. The next two conditional orders form part of the OCO Orders. The second condition is a ""Stop loss"" conditional order. Here you place the price you want to sell at if the price drops to or past your stop loss price. It will only be placed on to the market if your buy order gets traded. So if you wanted to place your stop loss at $9.00, you would type in 9.00 in the box after ""If at or below ?"" and select if you want a limit or market order. The third condition is a ""Take profit"" conditional order. This allows you to take profits if the stock reaches a certain price. Say you wanted to take profits at 30%, that is if the price reached $13.00. So you would type in 13.00 in the box after ""If at or above ?"" and again select if you want a limit or market order. Once you have bought the stock if the stop order gets triggered then the take profit order gets cancelled automatically. If on the other hand the take profit order gets triggered then the stop loss order gets cancelled automatically. These OCO conditional orders can be placed either at the time you enter your buy order or after you have already bought the stock, and they can be edited or deleted at any time. The broker you use may have a different process for entering conditional and OCO orders such as these." "I'm just trying to visualize the costs of trading. Say I set up an account to trade something (forex, stock, even bitcoin) and I was going to let a random generator determine when I should buy or sell it. If I do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Your question is what a mathematician would call an ""ill-posed problem.""  It makes it a challenge to answer.  The short answer is ""no.""  We will have to consider three broad cases for types of assets and two time intervals. Let us start with a very short time interval.  The bid-ask spread covers the anticipated cost to the market maker of holding an asset bought in the market equal to the opportunity costs over the half-life of the holding period.  A consequence of this is that you are nearly guaranteed to lose money if your time interval between trades is less than the half-life of the actual portfolio of the market maker.  To use a dice analogy, imagine having to pay a fee per roll before you can gamble.  You can win, but it will be biased toward losing. Now let us go to the extreme opposite time period, which is that you will buy now and sell one minute before you die.  For stocks, you would have received the dividends plus any stocks you sold from mergers.  Conversely, you would have had to pay the dividends on your short sales and received a gain on every short stock that went bankrupt.  Because you have to pay interest on short sales and dividends passed, you will lose money on a net basis to the market maker.  Maybe you are seeing a pattern here.  The phrase ""market maker"" will come up a lot. Now let us look at currencies.  In the long run, if the current fiat money policy regime holds, you will lose a lot of money.  Deflation is not a big deal under a commodity money regime, but it is a problem under fiat money, so central banks avoid it.  So your long currency holdings will depreciate.  Your short would appreciate, except you have to pay interest on them at a rate greater than the rate of inflation to the market maker. Finally, for commodities, no one will allow perpetual holding of short positions in commodities because people want them delivered.  Because insider knowledge is presumed under the commodities trading laws, a random investor would be at a giant disadvantage similar to what a chess player who played randomly would face against a grand master chess player.  There is a very strong information asymmetry in commodity contracts.  There are people who actually do know how much cotton there is in the world, how much is planted in the ground, and what the demand will be and that knowledge is not shared with the world at large.  You would be fleeced. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do   worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my   chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. A physicist, a con man, a magician and a statistician would tell you that dice rolls and coin tosses are not random.  While we teach ""fair"" coins and ""fair"" dice in introductory college classes to simplify many complex ideas, they also do not exist.  If you want to see a funny version of the dice roll game, watch the 1962 Japanese movie Zatoichi.  It is an action movie, but it begins with a dice game.   Consider adopting a Bayesian perspective on probability as it would be a healthier perspective based on how you are thinking about this problem.  A ""frequency"" approach always assumes the null model is true, which is what you are doing.  Had you tried this will real money, your model would have been falsified, but you still wouldn't know the true model. Yes, you can do much worse than 1/6th of the time.  Even if you are trying to be ""fair,"" you have not accounted for the variance. Extending that logic, then for an inexperienced trader, is it right to   say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it   is to purposely make a profit? Because if I can purposely make a loss,   I would purposely just do the opposite of what I'm doing to make a   profit. So in the dice example, if I can somehow lower my chances of   winning below 16.6667%, it means I would simply need to bet on the   other 5 numbers to give myself a better than 83% chance of winning. If the game were ""fair,"" but for things like forex the rules of the game are purposefully changed by the market maker to maximize long-run profitability.  Under US law, forex is not regulated by anything other than common law.  As a result, the market maker can state any price, including prices far from the market, with the intent to make a system used by actors losing systems, such as to trigger margin calls.  The prices quoted by forex dealers in the US move loosely with the global rates, but vary enough that only the dealer should make money systematically.  A fixed strategy would promote loss. You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of   view simply the transaction costs? No matter what, my chances cannot   be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is   greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction   cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money.  The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a ""mean return.""  A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an ""all-or-nothing"" cost function to evaluate your methodology." First, I want to point out that your question contains an assumption. Does anyone make significant money trading low volume stocks?  I'm not sure this is the case - I've never heard of a hedge fund trading in the pink sheets, for example. Second, if your assumption is valid, here are a few ideas how it might work: Accumulate slowly, exit slowly.  This won't work for short-term swings, but if you feel like a low-volume stock will be a longer-term winner, you can accumulate a sizable portion in small enough chunks not to swing the price (and then slowly unwind your position when the price has increased sufficiently). Create additional buyers/sellers.  Your frustration may be one of the reasons low-volume stock is so full of scammers pumping and dumping (read any investing message board to see examples of this).  If you can scare holders of the stock into selling, you can buy significant portions without driving the stock price up.  Similarly, if you can convince people to buy the stock, you can unload without destroying the price.  This is (of course) morally and legally dubious, so I would not recommend this practice. GIC perhaps? These would be quite similar to Certificates of Deposit where one is agreeing to lock up their money for a term and be paid a percentage for doing so. There are various kinds as some may be linked to market returns in some cases and others are just simple interest. Yes, you can do this buy placing a conditional order to buy at market if the price moves to 106 or above. Once the price hits 106 your market order will hit the market and you will purchase the stock at 106 or above. You can also place a tack profit order at 107 linked to your initial conditional buy order, so that once you buy order is executed and you buy at 106, a take profit order will be executed only if the price reaches 107 or above.  If the price never reaches 106, neither your market buy order or take profit order will hit the market and you won't buy or sell anything. What it is trying to describe is the psychology around the current price of the stock.  In candlestick charts for example, if you get what is called a Bearish Engulfing Candle (where the open is higher than the previous day's close and the close is lower than the previous day's open) at the top of an uptrend, this could mean that the top may have been reached and the bears are taking over the bulls. A Bearish Engulfing candle is seen as a bearish reversal pattern, as the bulls start the day by opening the stock at a higher price than yesterday's close, but by the end of the day the bears have taken over as the price drops below yesterday's open. This reversal pattern can be even more pronounced and effective if it coincides with other chart indicators, such as an overbought momentum indicator. If you want to learn more look up about the Psychology of the market and Candlestick Charting. "Yes. The definition of unreasonable shows as ""not guided by or based on good sense."" 100% years require a high risk. Can your one stock double, or even go up three fold? Sure, but that would likely be a small part of your portfolio. Overall, long term, you are not likely to beat the market by such high numbers.  That said, I had 2 years of returns well over 100%. 1998, and 1999. The S&P was up 26.7% and 19.5%, and I was very leverage in high tech stock options. As others mentioned, leverage was key. (Mark used the term 'gearing' which I think is leverage). When 2000 started crashing, I had taken enough off the table to end the year down 12% vs the S&P -10%, but this was down from a near 50% gain in Q1 of that year. As the crash continued, I was no longer leveraged and haven't been since. The last 12 years or so, I've happily lagged the S&P by a few basis points (.04-.02%).  Also note, Buffet has returned an amazing 15.9%/yr on average for the last 30 years (vs the S&P 11.4%). 16% is far from 100%. The last 10 year, however, his return was a modest 8.6%, just .1% above the S&P." "What determines your profitability is not your time, but your TRADES. It is probably a mistake to go into the market and say, I hope to make X% today/this month/this year. As a practical matter, you can make a lot of money in a short period of time, or lose a lot over a long period of time (the latter is more likely). You're better off looking at potential trades and saying ""I like this trade"" (be sure to know why) and ""I dislike that trade."" If you're right about your chosen trade, you'll make money. Probably not on your original timetable, because markets react more slowly than individual people do. Then make ONLY those trades that you genuinely like and understand. IF you get into a ""rhythm,"" (rather few people do), your experience might tell you that you are likely to make, say, X% per month or year. But that's ONLY if the market continues to accommodate YOUR style of trading. If the markets change, YOU must change (or get lost in the shuffle). Trading is a risky, if sometimes rewarding business. The operative motto here is: ""You pay your money and you take your chances,"" NOT ""You put in your time and eventually rewards will come.""" Probably not.  Once the formula is out there, and if it actually seems to work, more and more investors chase the same stocks, drive the price up, and poof!  The advantage is gone. This is the very reason why Warren Buffett doesn't announce his intentions when he's buying.  If people know that BRK is buying, lots of others will follow. Look into commodities futures & options. Unfortunately, they are not trivial instruments. "For every buyer there is a seller. That rule refers to actual (historical) trades. It doesn't apply to ""wannabees."" Suppose there are buyers for 2,000 shares and sellers for only 1,000 at a given price, P. Some of those buyers will raise their ""bid"" (the indication of the price they are willing to pay) above P so that the sellers of the 1000 shares will fill their orders first  (""sold to the highest bidder""). The ones that don't do this will (probably) not get their orders filled. Suppose there are more sellers than buyers. Then some sellers will lower their ""offer"" price to attract buyers (and some sellers probably won't). At a low enough price, there will likely be a ""match"" between the total number of shares on sale, and shares on purchase orders."