Is there any reason why technical analysis would work
- Thread starter nycderivtrader
- Start date
=======Quote from Girlpower:
OK. How about turning the question around a little.
is there any reason why it wouldn't ever work?
Now that would make for some interesting replies
best regards
Natalie
Harrytrader mentioned the sunrise;
notice certain points on the sundial or your wristwatch the following points.
A twenty period moving average ,& Atlanta interstate highway ,& Chicago airport can get so crowded to'' not work'' much, at times.
Discretion helps it work.
Like Magna says [ paraphrase ] use moving averages different from others.
[Sunglasses!]''Discretion shall preserve you'' , Solomon ,trader king
I have proof for Harry trader.
TA works.
I replied earlier but had not read back the caucophany of doubters.
I gather from the words that you are all in your thirties, maybe a few immature forties.
I am a rich person over 50. TA works. Then again, I understand TA. I am 53, have been coasting with it for years. My TA does not involve what you young people have learned. Technical analysis, to me, is my own. Good luck with yours. You either believe or you don't. The discordant ring, for you Harry trader, is all of the people who know exactly what you're doing. You are obviously the attention of a few, obviously not left alone. My own experience has been that, when I truly make decisions on my own, with no noise in the background, they are right. Every purist faces peoplewhoknowalittle. If you are real, you explain to no one. You just make money. Easily. I was once in my thirties and found it more difficult. I am truly an old trader. No one would dare to write the comebacks that have come to you. Good luck. You seem on the right track.
TA works.
I replied earlier but had not read back the caucophany of doubters.
I gather from the words that you are all in your thirties, maybe a few immature forties.
I am a rich person over 50. TA works. Then again, I understand TA. I am 53, have been coasting with it for years. My TA does not involve what you young people have learned. Technical analysis, to me, is my own. Good luck with yours. You either believe or you don't. The discordant ring, for you Harry trader, is all of the people who know exactly what you're doing. You are obviously the attention of a few, obviously not left alone. My own experience has been that, when I truly make decisions on my own, with no noise in the background, they are right. Every purist faces peoplewhoknowalittle. If you are real, you explain to no one. You just make money. Easily. I was once in my thirties and found it more difficult. I am truly an old trader. No one would dare to write the comebacks that have come to you. Good luck. You seem on the right track.
Astrology also. So the real problem is to get a "true" framework that's what I understand by "reason" mentioned in the thread. Science comes from "Scentia" meaning "TRUE knowledge" implicitely meaning that there are FALSE "knowledge" 
.
.You're right that's the problem of forums in general I only pick among the latests posts so I didn't read your answer (where is it I can't find it ?).
Now I as for me don't need proof because I have MY model as proof. I speak in general and from the point of view of ACADEMOC STANDARD which is considered as the ultimate judges by people. And by academic standard TA can't work because of the so called Efficiency of the market that again from their point of view has not been clearly dismissed by statistical test. For example I read a doctorate thesis in 1998 which has 300 pages on current state of art of stock modeling academic research from different academics (the exact title translated from french is "financial market and modelisation of market's return" and the problem of efficiency is the center of this modelisation), I can expose the problematic if you want but it would be a little boring (because of the maths and semantics)
(at that time I was just achieving my theorical model that I was still looking for confronting it with state of art). None of any of scientific (econometric) model today (I mean RATIONALITY is the center of econometric model) today can make a link with TA (except mine but I don't count myself since I'm not officially from academic research). If I take my model it is not TA per se but an econometric model and as far as I know it is the only CAUSAL and RATIONAL MODEL wich can do the link with TA (whereas the justification given today by TA practioners is psychology and that cannot be accepted scientifically as deterministic law if there is no modelisation such as using utitilities concept). That's why I now believe in TA but that was not the case before. And since you are not me but another person and since I'm not an academic person you can't use my model as proof (at least I didn't publish in any scientific publication although some academic researchers have suggested me to do so but I don't want to because it needs much formalisation to make a publication and above all I don't want to reveal this model. I don't want the mass public and even traders to it that can lead to catastrophic consequences).
Now I as for me don't need proof because I have MY model as proof. I speak in general and from the point of view of ACADEMOC STANDARD which is considered as the ultimate judges by people. And by academic standard TA can't work because of the so called Efficiency of the market that again from their point of view has not been clearly dismissed by statistical test. For example I read a doctorate thesis in 1998 which has 300 pages on current state of art of stock modeling academic research from different academics (the exact title translated from french is "financial market and modelisation of market's return" and the problem of efficiency is the center of this modelisation), I can expose the problematic if you want but it would be a little boring (because of the maths and semantics)
(at that time I was just achieving my theorical model that I was still looking for confronting it with state of art). None of any of scientific (econometric) model today (I mean RATIONALITY is the center of econometric model) today can make a link with TA (except mine but I don't count myself since I'm not officially from academic research). If I take my model it is not TA per se but an econometric model and as far as I know it is the only CAUSAL and RATIONAL MODEL wich can do the link with TA (whereas the justification given today by TA practioners is psychology and that cannot be accepted scientifically as deterministic law if there is no modelisation such as using utitilities concept). That's why I now believe in TA but that was not the case before. And since you are not me but another person and since I'm not an academic person you can't use my model as proof (at least I didn't publish in any scientific publication although some academic researchers have suggested me to do so but I don't want to because it needs much formalisation to make a publication and above all I don't want to reveal this model. I don't want the mass public and even traders to it that can lead to catastrophic consequences).Follow the thread on Psychology of crowd in academic research I will make the link with TA and precise the post above:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=21918
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=21918