Has TA ever been proven?

marketsurfer · Oct 30, 2003

TA is a concept, not a method.

TA is a way to frame the market, not the holy grail.

TA is deception personified when used incorrectly.

those are my thoughts on TA.

best,

surfer

ChartingMarkets · Oct 30, 2003

Quote from harrytrader:

Of course, on the contrary is it a problem for you . As far as I know this is a question asked by somebody else than you and me, you answered, I answered also, if my answer displeased you, it's your right but don't try to escape into vague generalities.
The question is about (scientific proofs) and THAT is the very point of how I want to approach the market and design trading systems. I will write soon an article untitled "For a true scientific approach with a Universal Trading System Design" I use the term universal in the sense of Carnot - the father of Entropy Principle - which I have prepared in fact a (bad translation ) from french for the future article that I will write: you can read what is in blue and perhaps anticipate what I mean (for that substitute production of motive power with production of money and machines with trading system ).

<IMG SRC=http://www.econometric-wave.com/articles/images/carnot_reflections_on_the_Motive_Power_of_Fire.gif>
http://www.econometric-wave.com/articles/images/carnot_reflections_on_the_Motive_Power_of_Fire.gif

On the contrary Harry, You had a retort to my reply of the original poster first, then I answered yours, then you answered mine and now I will reply to you again. So try to keep that straight. In conclusion, I have seen so many traders in the end come and go with this intellectual nonsense that it just makes me grin ear to ear knowing that your just more carp for me to feed on out there. Remember your model will be "competing" against me in essence. I look forward towards stealing from it day to day. Good Luck with your econometric model.

Grob109 · Oct 30, 2003

Quote from SProbability:

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_16/b3677113.htm

Thanks for posting.

That was a good first try by Tech. Kind of '50's like though. I hope they continue.

I liked the stuff WJO did to find a new pattern that worked really well and then package it in a compuer model.

harrytrader · Nov 1, 2003

I see no argument in your sentences : "Remember your model will be "competing" against me in essence" ? If I inverse the phrase "Remember you will be "competing" against my model in essence" what kind of argument is it

. Sorry, I don't think you have a thorough understanding of market: we above all compete with the (big) market makers because the market makers make the market so their name

.

Quote from ChartingMarkets:

On the contrary Harry, You had a retort to my reply of the original poster first, then I answered yours, then you answered mine and now I will reply to you again. So try to keep that straight. In conclusion, I have seen so many traders in the end come and go with this intellectual nonsense that it just makes me grin ear to ear knowing that your just more carp for me to feed on out there. Remember your model will be "competing" against me in essence. I look forward towards stealing from it day to day. Good Luck with your econometric model.

formikatrading · Nov 1, 2003

I view TA as more art than science. You could give the same people the same trading technique and they will have different results. Further, there are so many components to TA but not everyone uses the same combination of components. In a nutshell, TA is a tool but each person needs to figure out how to use that tool effectively.

gwb-trading · Nov 1, 2003

The Value and Merit of Technical Analysis
A four part article with some good references.

http://www.wealth-lab.com/cgi-bin/WealthLab.DLL/getpage?page=articles/ValueTA1.htm

ChartingMarkets · Nov 1, 2003

Quote from harrytrader:

I see no argument in your sentences : "Remember your model will be "competing" against me in essence" ? If I inverse the phrase "Remember you will be "competing" against my model in essence" what kind of argument is it . Sorry, I don't think you have a thorough understanding of market: we above all compete with the (big) market makers because the market makers make the market so their name .

LOL Harry, I have friends who are market makers. Why I bring that up is because these "all powerful" market makers put both of their shoes on just like you and me and take a dump in the can every day as well. They have the advantage of order flow. Most of the other time they are struggling to make a dime as they compete with the rest of the institutional and retail money. Let me clarify something since you made it a point of reference: Yes your model will be competing against me, and yes the inverse is true as well. However, I didn't think it necessary to have to name every single other entity in the marketplace in order for someone like yourself to understand that we are all competing against one another. Harry your a smart guy...but what is needed to trade succesfully is market smarts.

murray t turtle · Nov 1, 2003

PartialQuote from harrytrader:

[B So human psychology is still useful to know.

[/B]

===

My question is how could you not notice proof people have habits; and work that into a business plan.???

Even fundamentalist fund managers use a crude form of TA;
like closing prices in newspapers & such.

===
Inspirational Quote

Swat[special weapon and tactics] sniper police man said
''I patterened him'';
then shot, made a skilled shot & shot the weapon right out of the crooks hand.

Source DISH TV Most Dangerous Police Videos

Don Bright · Nov 2, 2003

Quote from garfangle:

Would like to know whether there have been research papers from top finance journals that document and statistically prove a significant correlation (R^2 > .70) in any number of technical analysis variables (MA, MACD, RSI, charting, et al) across a broad variety of markets: equities, futures, bonds, forex, etc.

If there is no such data or the data is mixed/misleading then how can one rely on such techniques to trade?

Ciao.

There is absolutely nothing to "prove"...all you're doing is showing what has happened and applying cool terms to chart patterns for easy recognition.

The idea of "proving" a future event doesn't make much sense does it?

Perhaps making an educated guess, based on patterns....but proving?Not really gonna happen.....IMHO....

Don

RAMOUTAR · Nov 2, 2003

Quote from garfangle:

Would like to know whether there have been research papers from top finance journals that document and statistically prove a significant correlation (R^2 > .70) in any number of technical analysis variables (MA, MACD, RSI, charting, et al) across a broad variety of markets: equities, futures, bonds, forex, etc.

If there is no such data or the data is mixed/misleading then how can one rely on such techniques to trade?

Ciao.

The question is not whether TA is proven (to be successful), but whether the trader has proven to use TA sucessfully.