CRUCIAL Knowledge about TA.

<B>What you need to know about DISCRETIONARY TRADING is that it is mostly based on recognizing chart patterns, support and resistance to evaluate trend continuation or reversal.
This style of trading has the advantage that it can be applied on ANY market, ANY timeframe at ANY POINT IN TIME.</B>

Alex,

I hope this isn't OT. As a still-struggling discretionary trader I get confused about <i>how rigidly</i> one sets the rules for taking a discretionary trade. Those rules can't really be set in stone, can they, because of that discretionary aspect? Say, as a "for instance", one has decided one of the setups to trade is the pullback following the breakout of a range. Now there are all kinds of bo's happening all the time. So one has to set some criteria, to a degree, for instance: 1) The range must have built up sufficient "cause", time-wise, for the expected trend move that is to follow that you wish to play, 2) the range must be exhibiting accumulation rather that distribution, because if it is the latter, one would expect the bo to fail, to be an upthrust, 3) the retracement must have certain characteristics, say, it should be shallow, 50% or less, on narrow spreads and low vol, the closes on the bars should be positive, near the highs, and so on... But even w/in these "rules" there is a discretionary aspect, yes? So you can never really make anything definite, there will <i>always</i> be that subjective pov. This is what perplexes me as I try to pin down a discretionary trading plan.

Harold
 
Quote from WAEL012000:

I am sorry but I agree with him that price action AND volume analysis are not TA. I also think that understanding and analysing volume in relation to price should occupy not less than 75% of your trading decision.
More...

since trendlines and MA's have a lot of similiarities , wouldn't it be fair to say that if one is a TA indicator the other is as well?
 
i could care less about volume - why because computer "testing" has shown me there is nothing there.

i can trade the sp futures using only the advancing issues of the nyse, so why would i need volume? sounds like the cult here on et.

mb
 
Quote from WAEL012000:

I am sorry but I agree with him that price action AND volume analysis are not TA. I also think that understanding and analysing volume in relation to price should occupy not less than 75% of your trading decision.
More...

There was no volume talk in his past quotes at ET...

Yet, I haven't read every one of his messages.

However, I disagree with you and there's nothing for you to be sorry about. :cool:

Anytime I look at a chart and study the price on that chart via any type of analysis...

It's TA to me.

Regardless, the difference of opinion won't make you or I lose or make more money because we can call the analysis of price whatever seems fashionable. :D

Mark
 
Quote from NihabaAshi:

Stever,

You need to be very carefully (others too) when debating about the value of TA with rcanfiel. Re-read his sentence very carefully.

As well as yours. About the only thing you got right in here, is that you spelled your name correctly.

First he saids TA doesn't work then he follows with the statement that there's value in price action. Simply, he's intentionally removing aspects of TA that works from the picture so that he can say TA doesn't work.

Don't be a shit for brains. I have always said that pure price action has value and TA does not. There is a significant minority of people on ET who disagree that PPA is necessarily a part of TA. Read a little.

He's been doing the following like statements since he's arrived at EliteTrader.com: * TA doesn't work

correct

* Trendlines, s/r levels and many other price action analysis are not TA :D

PPA is not a part of TA, as said. Also said S/R and Trendlines MAY have value. But again, you depend on a flaky memory to dredge up things you think are correct. I hope that memory is not what you depend on for trading...

With that said, what really is occurring with rcanfiel is that he wasn't able to get one aspect of TA to work...

never said and you have no way of knowing other than an uneducated guess. I have seen plenty of TA believers go down in flames, because they learn the hard way.

Traditional Indicators (e.g. stoc, macd, cci et cetera). Yet, to do a little grand standing and to be argumentive... He announces that all TA doesn't work along with stating other forms of TA are being excluded from his research/debates...

Classical TA does not work. It has been put through numerous studies, and is pretty much found wanting, on a longterm, robust basis especially after factoring in slippage and commissions.

Regarding "other forms of TA" the only thing that is left is the TA aficionados who cling to their own magical interpretations of TA. I asked multiple times for proof or evidence, but the responses are basically "works for me" or "I know someone it works for". But no one has stepped up to the plate after many requests to PROVE that their black magic works in a way that will completely satisfy a scientific/stat.

And where was YOUR evidence and proof that it works? Or do you like to just drone on spouting unfounded, mis representative opinions? Prove it, don't just whine!!!

He once stated that those with verified proof of being profitable while using TA are probably just lucky.

You are still a clueless soul. That there will be a small percentage of traders who are profitable over a lengthy period of time is PREDICTED by the random/efficient market hypotheses. That many people are lucky instead of gifted at trading is pure probability. Take a look at timertrac or other timing sites. Many systems look very appealing for a few months, and then crater. When you track 500 systems, five will be in the top 1%. That does not mean they work. Follow those five for another 2-4 months, and most of them will either become random or under perform.

Steve, all the TA you have described is excluded from his arguments that TA doesn't work so that he can maintain that facade that TA doesn't work.

Facade? A huge amount of studies. Where is your proof that this works? I never see anything but opinion from you.

He also stated that if it can't be coded for testing by a computer...it's not TA.

Another misstatement. Don't rely on your memory for facts, it is failing. I BASICALLY said if it cannot be put into a spreadsheet and analyzed and shown to statistically valid, then it an unproven system. Without evidence, it can be dismissed as anecdotal testimony.

Simply, his exclusion tactic implies he knows TA works and he doesn't have the guts to admit such a fact...

You are gyrating out of control. You air misguided opinions and then try to make unfounded conclusions.

Something that would destroy all these years of him testing and debating about merits of using Technical Analysis...

You mean something from TA aficionados that CONCLUSIVELY proved TA in a robust, unarguable, statistically valid way, using multiyear data, across numerous instruments and most TA indicators/gadgets, across numerous markets? As in, undo the damage from the large number of studies that continuously shows TA as having little outperform data?

Is that what you are and where is your proof again?

He's pssst off, venting and prefers arguing.

Pissed off and arguing? That is what the TA lovers are. All TA aficionados can do is throw out opinions and smokescreens continuously, since they are unable to supply valid proof of its value.

It's funny to see him enter threads that's talking about price patterns (it's happened twice) and he goes on record to say it has value and he's interested. However, as soon as you tell him its TA...he will soon disappear from the thread to never be heard from again in that thread.

I post in threads in about the same manner and frequency as most posters. I am sure your posting patterns are markedly different from mine? And that you can prove this? You have misquoted almost everything so far. The reality is, that when I push for proof, I get insults, opinions, rants and anecdotal evidence. I am more than happy for you to show me all the proof that supports TA. I am waiting... Post it below, please... (but of course, you will disappear or dump more opinions on instead...)
 
Quote from rcanfiel:

Quote from NihabaAshi:

...I post in threads in about the same manner and frequency as most posters. I am sure your posting patterns are markedly different from mine? And that you can prove this? You have misquoted almost everything so far. The reality is, that when I push for proof, I get insults, opinions, rants and anecdotal evidence. I am more than happy for you to show me all the proof that supports TA. I am waiting... Post it below, please... (but of course, you will disappear or dump more opinions on instead...) [/B]
More...

First of all, I didn't call you shit for brains nor have I ever called you any names nor implied such.

Therefore, you are the one that usually mudslings the insults.

However, that's already obvious via your latest reply and past replies in similar like fashion (not every reply but many).

As for proof, the links have been posted to you many times (broker statements et cetera) in the past.

However, your usual reply is that its the following...

...opinions, rants and anecdotal evidence...

Someone once replied to you (a trader that consistently post his statements here at ET) for several years along with stating he's using the exact same TA he's been using since his first profit/loss statement was posted at ET...

He didn't insult you, he didn't call you any names.

You got lost in your reply by calling him an idiot along with saying...

I'm still waiting for evidence across multiple markets that can be analyze in a spreadsheet as if you were in a bar fight throwing punches at anybody even those telling you to calm down. :D

If actual consistent profits shown in broker statement et cetera that TA is useful to a trader is not good enough...

While you have NOT ONCE shown a single statement yourself to merit standing in the same room debating with a profitable trader even after such was requested of you...

Who's ranting again. :confused:

Once again, I don't need to call you names (directly nor indirectly)...you have traveled that path on your own...

A choice you made.

Further, I'll repeat to you one more time...

TA is just part of the book in successful trading.

I and many others have explained this too you many times before.

Simply, profitable traders know its not all about entry signals so why do TA bashers approach your evidence that TA doesn't work as if profitable traders use TA all by itself???

In contrast, losing traders and many TA bashers act as if those that are profitable and defending TA are acting as if TA was the only thing in their basket called edge.

With that said, my statements are posted online almost every trading day except for the days I don't trade.

Yes, they show I'm profitable and I do use TA along with many other things I consider to make up that edge.

Then again, you already knew that. :mad:

If you want to see my statements...

Send me a private message along with your ISP email address (none of that free stuff), real name, telephone number and an apology about the name calling...

I want to put a real face on the person asking for my documentation that I'm profitable via using TA.

I'll personally give you a phone call and then I'll tell you the link location online.

Many here have seen them anyway (no biggie for me)...

I'll be waiting for your pm that will include the info I asked for.

Almost forgot, I want to see your statements too and that's only when I'll tell you exactly what type of TA I'm using all these years. :cool:

Likewise, I'll also give you my real ISP email address, real name and phone number.

P.S. Don't reply with any more name calling...just send the darn pm and I'll gladly let you see what occurs in my backyard.

Mark
 
Quote from NihabaAshi:

First of all, I didn't call you shit for brains nor have I ever called you any names nor implied such. Therefore, you are the one that usually mudslings the insults. However, that's already obvious via your latest reply and past replies in similar like fashion (not every reply but many).

I use the term shit for brains, because you string together a bunch of inaccurate and false statements about me, and chuckle as if you have proven something, which you didn't. It pisses me off when people have no clue about the precise accuracy, and hang someone up as a pinyata when they falsify and have no idea what is true. Nothing has changed in this response of yours.

As for proof, the links have been posted to you many times (broker statements et cetera) in the past.

NO ONE directed any broker statements my way.

However, your usual reply is that its the following...

...opinions, rants and anecdotal evidence...

CORRECT. Read the past replies, and you would know this is accurate.

Someone once replied to you (a trader that consistently post his statements here at ET) for several years along with stating he's using the exact same TA he's been using since his first profit/loss statement was posted at ET...

ANECDOTAL. Don't you know the difference?

He didn't insult you, he didn't call you any names. You got lost in your reply by calling him an idiot along with saying...

Show me the exact post to prove what you just said. As I said, almost everything in your previuos post was untrue or distorted the truth.


If actual consistent profits shown in broker statement et cetera that TA is useful to a trader is not good enough...

Again, NO ONE directed any broker statements my way.

While you have NOT ONCE shown a single statement and have refused to show a single statement when such is asked of you.

I don't use TA, so that proves nothing. Besides, broker statements prove NOTHING. They are generally unprovable, they do not show the person was using TA, they are heavily affected by money management, etc. etc. SHOW ME A DAMN RELIABLE STUDY FROM A RELIABLE PARTY THAT DEFINITELY PROVES THE EFFICACY OF TA. Don't keep pointing to phantoms.

Who's ranting again. :confused:

YOU

Once again, I don't need to call you names (directly nor indirectly)...you have traveled that path on your own. Further, I'll repeat to you one more time... TA is just part of the book in sucessful trading. I and many others have explained this too you many times before. Simply, profitable traders know its not all about entry signals so why do TA bashers approach your evidence that TA doesn't work as if profitable traders use TA all by itself???

That is orthogonal to whether TA has value. The other things people do do not support or deny the value of TA, so that is irrelevant

By the way, my statements are posted online almost every trading day except for the days I don't trade.
Yes, they show I'm profitable and I do use TA along with many other things I consider to make up that edge. Then again, you already knew that. :mad:

NO I DIDN'T. And broker statements are still anecdotal. One trader who says he does something, and waves broker statements is not proof. But you still do not get this.

If you want to see my statements...

Send me a private message along with your ISP email address (none of that free stuff), real name, telephone number...

I'll personally give you a phone call and then I'll tell you the link location online. Many here have seen them anyway...

Not interested in a single trader's self-testimony. Statements are still anecdotal and subject to doctoring. I am still waiting for you to provide definite proof. Surely the things you follow must have been tested somewhere by someone.

I'll be waiting for your pm[/b] that will include the info I asked for.
Almost forgot, I want to see your statements too and then I'll tell you exactly what type of TA I'm using all these years. :cool:
P.S. Don't reply with anymore name calling...just send the darn pm and I'll gladly let you see what occurs in my backyard.

Send the study results. Keep the statements. When I see robust proof, I will respond again.
More...
 
Quote from rcanfiel:

Quote from NihabaAshi:

Send the study results. Keep the statements. When I see robust proof, I will respond again.
More...

Months from now...someone will mention this particular conversation between you and I.

Don't pretend it never occurred. :mad:

With that said, you've made it clear that you aren't going to apologize for the name calling nor are you interested in actual trading results via TA nor will you show your own statements nor will you allow me to meet with one on one in a phone conversation all prior to me giving you any info about my TA...

Our conversation has ended. :mad:

Take care whom ever you are.

Mark
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top