New study says: Technical Analysis is garbage

Quote from maxpi:

Somebody better tell Don Bright that TA doesn't work, he needs to tell all those traders doing opening range breakouts quick before they blow up :eek:
More...


don bright DOES NOT teach TA. First, TA is defined by the giants in the field such as murphy pring and

brights opening trades HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TA as is defined.
 
No, actually TA is defined by you, the trader. If you look at a chart, and place trades from ANYTHING other than just company fundamentals, you've just used TA.

Sure there are classic TA patterns, but that is just one subset in an almost unlimited array of things one can use to decipher mkt action.

Quote from ambienCR:

First, TA is defined by the giants in the field such as murphy pring...
More...
 
Quote from ambienCR:

don bright DOES NOT teach TA. First, TA is defined by the giants in the field such as murphy pring and

brights opening trades HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TA as is defined.
More...

WTF you talking about? Opening range trading is right out of Toby Crabel's research... If it's not FA, it's not intuition, then what is it? Measuring opening range volatility and using it to predict volatility is most certainly technical in nature.. who made you the arbiter of trading definitions?
 
The sad thing is, that as TA consistently fails in study after study after study after study, in the many dozens. The "counter" evidence that it does work on this forum is basically "works for me", "I know someone who uses TA and..." taunts, whining, anger, tantrums, mob pyschology, opinion and wounded belief systems

Basically, Galileo is on trial again because he had the nerve to provide convincing evidence that things went around Jupiter, thus the geocentric model of the Universe.

Saying that researchers cannot trade and therefore do studies? So that is why we can dismiss them? Did you fail 3rd grade? Is this also to be applied to nutritional, medical, scientific and other studies?

Still think the Earth is flat because it looks that way to you?

How many different ways does TA's predictive value have to be disproven before these paper traders get it?

The TA aficianados are so sure that TA works, here is your chance to give some convincing proof

Who is first? You can be the one that provides some kind of clear evidence. Step right up and Select your method of proof:

Timetrac (this one is free, if money is too tight)
Striker Securities
Attain Capital
Collective2
Theta Research
StrategyRunner
Robbins World Cup

Let us know when you plan to start your NEW Audited system based on TA ONLY. You must:
-- go 6 months minimum (to avoid "luck factor.")
-- do at least 100 trades
-- have good stats (sharpe, profit factor, drawdown)
-- have no "restarts" of new systems because a previous attempt blew up
-- use no leverage (doubling the beta and hoping to get lucky is not outperformance
-- and must seriously outperform your chosen instrument's underlying index...

I can hear the excuses and the silence and the Nanny Nanny boo boos and anything else to change the subject. Anything, but real-world evidence...
 
The paper I posted agrees that momentum works(heck even Eugene Fama does), so I bet some ETrs attribute their success to TA but at the end of the day they buy uptrends and sell downtrends and this could be the reason of their success
 
OPENING RANGE combined with proper knowledge of average true range...........WORKS............WHETHER it qualifies as technical analysis.... i do not know .....nor do i care........i mleave those questions to the 95 % of traders that are paper traders.....legends in their own minds///////////////
 
Quote from ambienCR:

Is this why you are on elite, bragging to whomever will listen about your "secrets"?

On C2 instead of being a billionaire with the holy grail. are you a sad little person or a out and out deceiver?
More...

Just very confident in what I do, and I certainly have the credentials to back up what I'm saying.
 
Quote from R. Raskolnikov:

No, actually TA is defined by you, the trader. If you look at a chart, and place trades from ANYTHING other than just company fundamentals, you've just used TA.
More...

Actually, no. Options pricing is not based on fundamental analysis. In fact, the components of option pricing have nothing to do with anything on a balance sheet. Don't you think? Just say, "Yes."


Anyway, this is why I think what I do is quantitative analysis, not technical. There's a much greater difference in option pricing than basing your trades on a simple moving average, RSI, or MACD, which I would agree, doesn't work.

Options pricing is a wonderful tool. It tells exactly what the market thinks the price of an option should be worth, and in doing so can expose the direction the market will "most likely" move in and also "by how much" it will move. Nothing at all about a company's fundamentals has anything to do with the price of these derivatives. I've adapted these models to price ETF derivatives, like SDS, SSO, MVV, MZZ, DXD, DDM, and especially QID and QLD. It can really be adapted for any highly correlated pair, and can be used on put/call prices as well.

Without the model, though, black scholes is a useful tool, and this is the only example that would trump your statement.
 
Massive amounts of money have been traded in trend following CTAs for decades. No predictive TA stuff, all reactive price action. No fundamentals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top