Search results

I see Cramer's performance is 47%, which is coin-flip territory.

I'm not naive about you. You're a fraud. A stealth vendor who rails against other stealth vendors. Carry on.

You finally figured out how to word your challenge correctly. Anyway the link I provided does exactly what you demand. How lazy are you? My point is crystal clear to all but the deliberately obtuse. And you've made WRB's point. Your vendetta against TA is personal, and not remotely...

Your challenge is arbitrary and silly. Why a 50% increase? A 20% increase is quite significant and desirable. Given your insistence that TA is no better than random, any deviation from random is enough to prove you wrong. As far as the link, how lazy are you? Just click it and find out what...

You lie, surf. And it's a pathetic lie. You actually posted once to the ACD thread. But not to bash. You wouldn't dare. As WRB pointed out, "The ACD Method" is the biggest thread in the TA forum. Everybody knows what it is about (TA), even those who have no interest in TA. What a silly...

I notice that you don't dare insert yourself into the ACD thread with your anti-TA rants. Why is that?

Happy New Year, surf. http://m.rfs.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/41.short http://www.nber.org/papers/w7613

Nonsense. The purpose of an indicator is to indicate. In the context of trading, a technical indicator indicates what the trader should do next: buy, sell or stand pat.

Thank you. The sample sizes are certainly large enough to justify the performance numbers you posted. OTOH it looks a bit mystifying. There are only 252 trading days in a year, which translate to 504 trading days over two years. So 2394 trading signals implies either intraday trading or trading...

The numbers mean nothing without knowing what they're based on. How many trades are you talking about here? An exact number please,, not some round-off. I would also like to see something more precise than "70%+". Looking forward to your update.

Good for you. Most trend followers can't do this. Somewhat surprising that you seem not to know that. Trend following strategies are notoriously low-accuracy for the most part. Michael Covel will charge you $3K to teach you a trend-following strategy that, by his own admission (in an ET post...

"Edge : the final frontier. These are the voyages of the trade ship EliteTrader. Its multi-year mission: to explore strange new trading strategies; to seek out new profits and new tax-avoidance plans; to boldly go where no trader has gone before." *cue STAR TREK theme music*

"We find no relationship between historical five-year returns and subsequent 12-month returns." FFS why would she? This has nothing to do with TA. Not any TA I've ever seen or thought about.

If your goal is to predict future prices, then it should be obvious that some technical indictors like MA crossovers are nonstarters. Most indicators are designed to indicate future price direction, not future price levels.

Don't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good Enough.

May not be that simple. http://www.priceactionlab.com/Blog/2015/12/long-term-backtests/#more-21242 Bottom line: it's a lot harder to trade now than the good ol' days. This is why the Turtle system (primarily channel breakouts) stopped working.

You can apply a trend indicator to any time series, financial or otherwise. Whether the application is appropriate depends primarily on how random the series is. Evidently the TA haters are convinced that price series are completely random. Fortunately technical traders know better.

The guy who says "should of" and "could of" is dissing another country's education system. Hilarious. And you're from the place where English was created. Too funny. :p :D

Outperforming the S&P per annum (after commissions) is a worthy goal.

Sorry but this is the nonsense I hear from some martial artists. "I don't study karate for fighting, I study karate for inner peace, self-awareness, yada, yada, blah, blah." That's a load of bollocks. You practice martial arts for fighting skills. You practice trading to make money. All else...