That's why a curriculum ought to focus on what is actually useful and only touch on the silliness of the rest. Otherwise there is an element of time-wasting false equivalence, wouldn't you agree? For example, meteorologists do not study rain dance, even though the practice exists in some corners. Medical students don't study homeopathy or reflexology simply because there are people out there who dreamed up this stuff and sell it. So just because there are nut jobs who dreamed up crap about trading markets and wrote books about it or, even worse, sold courses, doesn't mean it should carry any weight in a legitimate syllabus.
CMT disillusioned with MTA membership
- Thread starter Trader13
- Start date
I agree, I would have liked to see some evidence supporting each technique, but if they tested all the techniques and only included ones that proved to be profitable, the MTA would be out of business.
Okay, but not having taken the course, I didn't think they taught profitable trading. I was of the impression they were only supposed to provide a framework of understanding from which one can then design his own trading method, with the onus of profitability being on the user. Basic TA in and of itself is generic. It's what you bring to the table that brings it to life. At least that's my view.
Well said.
There is zero evidence for any of it-- beyond the 200 day SMA-- which produces questionable evidence of being edge producing over the long term.
Yet another Durf Alias? (aka marketsufer, eden, fon, etc...)
What part of Banned do you not understand?
No members want to listen to your dribble, the Founder doesn't want you here either..
Grow a pair and accept it, just move on. Be a cancer to another site..
Transitioning to two hyphens -- isn't fooling anyone either..
They sell dreams to idiots. They should be closed by SEC.