This is bullshit. You don't get to praise Aronson's scientific method and then say even though there are "missing aspects" in his tests, we should go with surf's gut that adding in these things wouldn't change the conclusion.I concur that Aronson's work is not complete and needs to be expanded-- but it provides a framework and my experience has been that even when the missing aspects are added ALL the results still show not enough of an edge to cover the vig over time--- there are dozens if not 100's of academic papers showing the same thing-- but TA believers can show what is missing in each study ( there is usually something missing) but my contention is that even with this missing element(s) the results are still not enough to cover the cost of trade.
surf
Your gut feelings notwithstanding, Aaronson blew the whole point of his book by testing bogus strategies, not a single strategy that a real trader would use. Your gut is not objective evidence for or against TA.