I thought it was called a "trading course". Most traders whom I know say money management and psychology are the two most important parts of trading and thus any self-titled "trading course".
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I have bought Al Brooks' Trading Course
- Thread starter Visaria
- Start date
I thought it was called a "trading course". Most traders whom I know say money management and psychology are the two most important parts of trading and thus any self-titled "trading course".
That capital is controlled by humans with human motives, or by "machines" that have been designed to operate in a way by which particular humans would benefit, i.e. according to human wants, needs, desires. Without human beings, there is no market anywhere.
TA is predicated upon a freely traded, liquid market. A closely held company with a low public float or a futures contract with little widespread interest would not be a good candidate for TA. TA, for example, would not be worth very much if applied to most options contracts, and given the decaying nature of options, TA applied to the underlying might still not yield high probability options trade opportunities very often. Compare also the spot forex market for the Euro/Yen cross and compare it to the market for futures contracts of the same underlying pair. While TA can help one analyze the price action of the spot market, it would be of doubtful and dubious benefit to analyzing the futures for that currency pair.
Of course not. The assumption of TA is simply that all known information about a market, security, or instrument is reflected to some degree in the current price. It does not even require that information to be widely known - just available to some of the market participants who currently have an interest in that particular security. No one ever claimed TA could predict that a fund manager would have a bad burger and dump his shares - including the fund manager himself, or he'd have avoided eating the bad burger to begin with, dump his shares, and would have saved himself from getting his stomach pumped.
So long as you insist that TA practitioners believe TA predicts, rather than identifies and quantifies probabilities, or so long as you insist that financial markets are a special case to which probabilities do not apply, then you will not believe TA has any value in making decisions in the financial markets. If you believe the latter, then you ought to start making a case here, supported by evidence that can be discussed and not your simple argumentative assertions.
If you believe the former, that TA practitioners believe it possesses so-called "predictive powers," I'd direct you to the following passage from Mark Douglas, which succinctly, accurately, and unambiguously to all but the prejudiced, tone-deaf, or otherwise stupid, characterizes how a TA focused trader understands what one's TA set-ups mean:
This all sounds good and appears to make sense. However, your post touches upon the crux of the issue
You state that TA quantifies and identifies probability. It does neither and by saying this it shows a lack of understanding.
Not to mention, arguing that TA does not try to predict is just silly. By entering a directional trade you ARE predicting about the trade or series ( for those who fall back on the series reasoning) so the word games don't work.
Last edited:
Take a look at surf report from 2002-2005-- i made $$ as aTA believer - i would argue TA works with VN -- then i understood the real reason i was making $$ and it wasn't TA.
surf
I don't think you read what I posted. I don't use TA, but I do use a naked chart. Posting statements is very different from posting trading calls with no stop and target.
I don't think you read what I posted. I don't use TA, but I do use a naked chart. Posting statements is very different from posting trading calls with no stop and target.
I'm not understanding your point. You intuitively trade from a naked chart?
If you use a chart, you are using TA by (my) definition.
agree
I'm not understanding your point. You intuitively trade from a naked chart?
yes. just a chart and the occasional horizontal line I draw in. imo it's not TA.
yes. just a chart and the occasional horizontal line I draw in. imo it's not TA.
Cool, if it works for you, great! I can't argue about that--- My argument is when someone posts a "method" snd make "claims" that is inherently flawed and clearly can not work-- yet they claim consistent multi year success with it. See the "price action chart posters on elite for examples.
Some have been driven from elite with their heads hung in shame. Others have even been outed by big mike when they sought asylum under his roof for themselves and their flock. peace, surf
Last edited:
yes. just a chart and the occasional horizontal line I draw in. imo it's not TA.
Lol. Of course it is.
You're using, or attempting to use, past price movements to predict future price movements.
In it's broadest sense, any methodology using price history, whether that's a long time back or a split second back is TA.