T&S would suffice. But remember that W used P&F for intraday trading. The results using OHLC charts will be different.
Are you a successful at home day trader with no other source of income who began with modest means?
- Thread starter JTrades
- Start date
T&S would suffice. But remember that W used P&F for intraday trading. The results using OHLC charts will be different.
http://www.dailyspeculations.com/wordpress/?p=10041#comments
As fate would have, Vn is talking about TA currently-----
Specs. I am trying to write a little something about technical analysis. Here's what I came up with. (by the way the first one to show that random charts and stock market charts look similar was Harry Roberts I think in 1956 or so but Holbrook working may have done it 20 years before). Anyway, how would you improve on what I wrote.
Most traders in the markets use charts and technical analysis to establish and exit their positions. Academicians and skeptics point to the random nature of many technical patterns. Here's a typical chart generated by random numbers. If you don't tell a trader it's randomly generated, they'll come up with all sorts of predictions and patterns that the chart generates. And if you dare to suggest that what they're doing is mumbo jumbo, they take great offense and beat you on the head with examples of great traders who follow charts, and examples of others who consistently make a fortune by using charts.
There's a trader from Harvard who uses charts and has made 20 billion who says "using a chart is like a Dr. taking your temperature before a diagnosis." Another one s
As fate would have, Vn is talking about TA currently-----
Specs. I am trying to write a little something about technical analysis. Here's what I came up with. (by the way the first one to show that random charts and stock market charts look similar was Harry Roberts I think in 1956 or so but Holbrook working may have done it 20 years before). Anyway, how would you improve on what I wrote.
Most traders in the markets use charts and technical analysis to establish and exit their positions. Academicians and skeptics point to the random nature of many technical patterns. Here's a typical chart generated by random numbers. If you don't tell a trader it's randomly generated, they'll come up with all sorts of predictions and patterns that the chart generates. And if you dare to suggest that what they're doing is mumbo jumbo, they take great offense and beat you on the head with examples of great traders who follow charts, and examples of others who consistently make a fortune by using charts.
There's a trader from Harvard who uses charts and has made 20 billion who says "using a chart is like a Dr. taking your temperature before a diagnosis." Another one s
Wycoff and price action traders? -----Search and Destroy their false and very financially dangerous gods
http://www.tvmcalcs.com/blog/comments/coin_tosses_and_stock_price_charts
http://www.tvmcalcs.com/blog/comments/coin_tosses_and_stock_price_charts
This guy (Timothy R. Mayes, Ph.D) doesn't know the difference between a pair of randomly generated local maxima and a double top!
Last edited:
That's because he knows so little about trading, which might explain why he's so bad at it.
I think I might be beginning to understand Surf's allergic nature to TA;
Surf, am I correct in thinking that you don't have a problem with the use of TA, but instead that people believe solely the reason for market moves is because of the TA analysis? IOW, are you taking issue with the 'believers' stating "f*ck everything, there's a double top and that's why the market went down" instead of your viewpoint that is (roughly), "cool, a double top was there right around the time Bernanke said we're raising rates to 1,000%." So then your problem is the militant belief in TA exclusively and giving no credence to external factors?
Is this right? If so, then I can see the reason for your TA vitriol. It would also explain why you constantly reference TA in your journal and articles written.
Surf, am I correct in thinking that you don't have a problem with the use of TA, but instead that people believe solely the reason for market moves is because of the TA analysis? IOW, are you taking issue with the 'believers' stating "f*ck everything, there's a double top and that's why the market went down" instead of your viewpoint that is (roughly), "cool, a double top was there right around the time Bernanke said we're raising rates to 1,000%." So then your problem is the militant belief in TA exclusively and giving no credence to external factors?
Is this right? If so, then I can see the reason for your TA vitriol. It would also explain why you constantly reference TA in your journal and articles written.
I meant Timothy R. Mayes, Ph.D of TVMCalcs, not our good friend.
