First of all, let me state that it is not my intention to take a position on who (Marketsurf, or dbphoneix and co.) is right.
I just thought that I would pose this for the purpose that everyone could learn from the conversations that have happened in this thread thus far. I have read through the views of DBs and others, learnt about their point of view.Marketsurf has given his/her insights as to his/her style, hence the quote from Marketsurf above. However, I was re-reading the posts made by Surf but I could not answer this question - "So what is Marketsurf interpretation of the market?" To be perfectly factual, most of the posts are made to rebut the assertions made by the other camp (Db and others). This sentence is direct to Marketsurf - Could we have a glimpse of your insights on the market and point out how you are different (disagree), or how you are similar (in agreement) with Db and others?
It helps as thereafter we get to see both views, compare and contrast, the individual readers like me in the background, will have their own takeaways from this thread - which is the ultimate objective why game started this...
Db or Marketsurf or any others, appreciate your comments or feedback on my post. But pls do not use my post as a springboard to further your endeavors in this thread. I don't mean that.
ETA
Hi, once again, thank you for this very substantive question-- first some background--
I was initially trained in the financial markets by a WD Gann and cycles adherent, This guy turned $10k into several million using these tactics so I was rather intrigued-- used the methods and made money--( this is all ducumented in in the surf report 2002-plus)
Joined the MTA and learned lots about TA etc. Thought it was the holy grail--- then i met a certain hedge fund manager who didn't believe in TA and we would argue and chat about it numerous times --- obviously, i would take the TA side--- then I realized that any success I had in the markets was despite using TA, not because of it. That there really wasn't any testable edge to TA and it was basically intuition then stopping out losers and letting winners run
guessing on direction by using past price DOES NOT increase the odds that a move will continue or end. If it did it could be quantified, then exploited untill that past price movement no longer has any predictive properties ( if it ever did) . In addition, markets morph to eliminate any edges anyway, so these folks using the same patterns for multiple years and claiming success are not telling the truth.
In addition, i have read Wyckoff and it is the most convoluted market material since WD Gann and Nostradamus. ANYTHING can be read into the material and its "right". hence my issue with the preachers. In addition, these same folks use terms like "odds" and "statistics" to provide a phony scientific aura to the material. Not to mention the use of terms like "auction market" which is true but from the point of view of a retail trader knowing this has no relevance whatsoever. But it SOUNDS GOOD and makes sense until put into action hence my zeal in notifying others about the danger of these ideas.
I don't believe the markets are random from an epistemological point of view, but I do from our perspective.
Price is the result of things happening, it is not the cause of itself. That is the logical error of TA in general. If it was not, one could quantify how many moves or series of moves in one direction will increase the odds of a move or series in the same or changed direction---
Ta is useful for description but has zero value for prediction,
Probability exists but it has to be quantafied to exist. It is not quantified by looking at charts therefore chart readers who use this term are misusing it.
peace, surf
