TA is BS?

[MrAgi1]

Again this is some even more criticism in the video below. Of course, there are outliers. However majority of the successful people in trading we hear off are either course/book sellers, brokers, signals providers e.t.c

Even the big American investment banks we think that trade, most of them are just market makers or sales men to their clients.

A bull or bear flag is really just buying or selling a dip. A triangle is kind of like buying a dip on volatility.

There are enough human traders in the markets that big round numbers are favored for levels. Nothing is more indicative of that bias than the total arbitrary obsession society has with people with a net worth of $1,000,000,000.

When people say TA is bullshit I don't think they are thinking very deeply about what they are even saying. To me it sounds like they are saying "Price going down is predictive of price going up is obvious bullshit", obviously.

The real comical thing is people will shit on TA and in the same breath talk about buying under priced stocks based on a discounted cash flow valuation. As if discounting future cash flows is some kind of science and not just as much fortune telling.

 

[SunTrader]

The old cliche - until someone invents a time machine - all data analysis, of any kind, is based on the past. Spend time using the type you feel works, rather than throwing rocks at the other types you feel don't work.

 

[MrAgi1]

Some uhh "non-randomness" found right @ TD TrendFactor level.View attachment 297309

Who knows, maybe you’re right.

 

[SunTrader]

...
The only strategy that seems to be almost always at the top over a long period of time is buying and holding the market index.

If that is what you truly believe than why are you even on a trading site.

 

[MrAgi1]

The old cliche - until someone invents a time machine - all data analysis, of any kind, is based on the past. Spend time using the type you feel works, rather than throwing rocks at the other types you feel don't work.

Lol I am doing that. Thanks.

 

[MrAgi1]

If that is what you truly believe than why are you even on a trading site.

I did not say others do not work. However, most strategies or edges tend to fade of with time, but buy and hold seem to a have a net positive return in the long run(although it is not super profitable). Just my 2 cents.

 

[MrAgi1]

Thanks for this video. I like it’s researched based approach.

 

[maxinger]

If you just use TA, your success rate is going to be like 1% or less.

so improve your success rate to say 50%,
you have to

- look at the bigger, macro picture of the market

- use inter-market correlations

 

[MrAgi1]

If you just use TA, your success rate is going to be like 1%.

so improve your success rate to say 50%,
you have to

- look at the bigger, macro picture of the market

- use inter-market correlations

Exactly. I can’t agree with you more.

 

[smallfil]

Again this is some even more criticism in the video below. Of course, there are outliers. However majority of the successful people in trading we hear off are either course/book sellers, brokers, signals providers e.t.c

Even the big American investment banks we think that trade, most of them are just market makers or sales men to their clients.

Well, some people has to be making monies all these times? Not everyone is a losing trader. The best run hedge funds run by top traders make monies most years. Now, they have losing years as well. It all comes down to percentages, nobody bats 100% or have the need to win 100% of the time. For all those losing trades and monies, someone is certainly, scooping them up and taking it. The big banks trade and actually, use your monies to profit. However, the best hedge funds and banks knows what they are doing----most retail traders have no clue but, will take negative expectation trading systems because they believe they know better than the stockmarket. That is why most retail traders lose----too many ignorant and arrogant retail traders think they will just go into the stockmarket and become overnight millionaires.