Search results

Sorry, that definition is incorrect.

I will post a correct definition later after we get some more input from other members.

Sorry, that definition is incorrect. Virtually every subject is something to argue about on ET.

Sorry, that definition is incorrect.

Sorry, that definition is incorrect. I will post a correct definition later after we get some more input from other members.

This thread is a challenge to the anti-TA crowd that for some strange reason(s) loves to hang out in the TA forum. Frankly I have a hard time believing you really know what TA is. Maybe I'm wrong. So I have a challenge for you: give us your definition of technical analysis. To avoid...

Yeah but he seems to be very reluctant to give any details: ignored You gotta wonder: what kind of "marketer" is hunting around for other people's edges and spends half his time telling them that certain edges (TA) can't work? And when you point out the holes in his logic, he just blithely...

How exactly do you plan on compensating this trader for sharing his edge with you? How does he know you won't just steal it and run away laughing?

Simple: somebody has to take the other side of the bet. If everybody is trying to bet in the same direction, it's like everybody trying to bet on the same horse in a horserace: the odds go to hell. Breakouts can still make money but nobody in today's markets can money like the turtles did...

Actually, surf, you're wrong again. Some known TA methods that have no edge today once did. IOW, they lost their edges thanks to disclosure ... one more reason not to share any working TA with you. As I recall, Granville's On Balance Volume (OBV) was hitting homeruns when it was first...

A person who was actually seeking to advance the knowledge base of the forum and was not simply trolling for debating points would make the logical conclusion that RR misspoke. When he said "Of COURSE all TA cannot be tested or evaluated", the logical interpretation (except for a troll) is...

Wrong again, or at least misleading. In order for a particular type of TA to be tested, it must be known. So: Known TA can be tested. Unknown TA (i.e., the vast majority of TA) obviously cannot be tested. You keep wanting to generalize from a tiny subset of TA (aka TA in the public...

Your first sentence is wrong (we don't all agree) precisely because your second sentence is wrong. LOL indeed. :p

Wrong with the very first sentence. TA doesn't show that activity, price and volume charts show that activity. The purpose of TA is to derive trading signals from price activity and/or volume activity. You don't understand TA yet you think you can judge all of it. Sad.

Your problem is that you don't know all TA. Nobody can. So your flat-out assertion that TA never works is like the patent clerk who quit the US Patent Office back in the 1880s because "everything has already been invented." If you expect to find working TA in a book then yes, you'll most...

Gotta disagree. The whole purpose of TA is to provide an edge via entry and exit signals. Position sizing is not an edge, position sizing is how you maximize your edge. But if you don't have an edge (positive expectation) to begin with, no kind of position sizing will give you one. This is...

Two other l-words besides "luck" come to mind with surf's insistence of openly declared and profitable TA being the only thing he'll accept: "lazy" and "leech".

Ever heard of stocks? The Hurst exponents of stocks are consistently greater than 0.5. :p

A PhD in statistics who can't figure out that markets have positive serial correlation. That is truly sad. No wonder he blows up his accounts. :D

+1 In addition, catch this bit: Dave: Exactly what testing have you done to prove the above idea? Victor: These tests can readily be performed. My group of colleagues performs these tests maybe 2-3 thousand times a year over different markets and time frames. So when asked what tests...