TA - Objective or Psychological Skill?

[kut2k2]

Quote from marketsurfer:

The predictors was written in 1991 and UBS believed there was enough validity to the predictive power of supercomputers way back then to purchase the firm/technology. Imagine how far things have progressed.

What about genetic evolving predatory algorithms that are able to morph depending on the market nvironmnt? Sounds pretty impressive to me.

You missed my point:

Supercomputers don't think.

Not everything about pattern recognition is known and programmed into a supercomputer somewhere, and no existing supercomputer is going to create such currently unknown wisdom on its own.

I recently made a discovery in money management which is shockingly obvious to me in hindsight but if anyone else has made the same discovery, he or she has not publicly disclosed it. In fact I go to a quant site like Wilmott and they are less aware of some aspects of position sizing than we are here in ET. Certain training and knowledge can be eye-opening or it can be a straitjacket, depending on the individual.

Neural networks were supposed to do what you think genetic programming is capable of doing now. The final rule for supercomputers is still Garbage In Garbage Out.

They are very useful tools for those who fully understand their capabilities and limitations, they are not "partners" who are going to help us issue in some golden age of ultimate wisdom.

 

[jack hershey]

Quote from marketsurfer:

The predictors was written in 1991 and UBS believed there was enough validity to the predictive power of supercomputers way back then to purchase the firm/technology. Imagine how far things have progressed.

What about genetic evolving predatory algorithms that are able to morph depending on the market nvironmnt? Sounds pretty impressive to me.

Yeah Bass wrote "The Predictors".

309 pages.

Keep in mind UBS got sucked into buying the company.

slip to page 273 of 309.

All the original employees but one have quit. LOL. Why?

The boss was fucked up.

Now back to page 273.

The books reads:

At the same time every day ........

Yes these shithead quants are doing trading with real money at the "same time every day" ..

Bass has written a book. He finds out something very late in his research. He proves he is totally unaware of markets and trading just as these shithead quants are.

Now we look at two things"

1. Marketsurfer's reference.

2. When the shithead quants find out their data feed does not do bid or ask identification. They see data and do not even know if it is bid or ask data.

Are these guys in the book dumber than ET members.

Yes and No. Most members are as dumb as marketsurfer who is really baked clay.

But there are some members that know MS is totally full of shit.

How far have things progressed?

For surf they will never progress. He still believes the bullshit Bass wrote about some shithead losers.

Today we can use the leading independent variable (volume) of the dependent variable (price) to determine 15 to 30 minutes ahead just when one of four types of trends is going to make a turn. Just use the Mordrian table ingredients.

TA is complete and objective. there are no flaws, no noise and no anomalies.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from wrbtrader:

Surf,

I know your debate tactics. I've never debated with you about science versus art (your typical past replies). I don't debate with you about illustration versus prediction. My statements have been the exact same each and every year here at ET.

* There are profitable traders that has TA as a key component of their trading plan.

* There are profitable traders that have shown verification that they are profitable while using TA. You have verified such yourself via T. Sykes. A trader that has never stated in any of his videos he uses TA for illustrative purpose only.

* There are traders that say they use TA and nothing else. I do not believe such is possible.

Therefore, please stop replying to me with the same junk argument that you have with others as if I walk around here saying I use TA all by itself. Simply, you do not make any sense to me because your replies do not involve anything I've debated with you about.

Losing traders try to use TA all by itself and nothing else. Tons of journal threads here at TA involving such. In the end, the trader eventually admits he/she was either not properly capitalized, no discipline, poor trade management, poor money management, no trading plan, didn't backtest their trading plan that has TA as one of the components or some other typical blowup reason.

Profitable traders that us TA have other components in their trading plan that on any given trading day...will be more important than TA or less important. Yet, the components work well together in the decision making process. Sports Analogy, disrupt the chemistry of any successful team and you'll have a losing team, mediocre team or a team that doesn't achieve its goals (e.g. take a look at the collapse of the Oklahoma City Thunder NBA basketball team in the playoffs).

Can a trader be profitable without TA ?

Yes, I know such is possible because I have close personal trading pals that do not use TA. I also have friends that use TA and they are profitable but TA is just one of their tools...on some days its not the most important tool behind their profits and on other days it is the most important tool behind their profits.

Regardless, your debates or arguments should be aimed at automation traders. In fact, I've never seen you debate here at ET with any automation traders about TA...did I miss something.

Yet, ironically, you still debate with discretionary traders that obviously isn't using TA and nothing else...why.

Ok, man, we agree on lots of points. Thank you for the clarification. A question, how do you account for claims made by nodoji, Cornix and others that they only use objective TA and rarely have a losing day??? You state you can not use TA by itself succefully. What's the disconnect here? Thanks. Surf

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from kut2k2:

You missed my point:

Supercomputers don't think.

Not everything about pattern recognition is known and programmed into a supercomputer somewhere, and no existing supercomputer is going to create such currently unknown wisdom on its own.

I recently made a discovery in money management which is shockingly obvious to me in hindsight but if anyone else has made the same discovery, he or she has not publicly disclosed it. In fact I go to a quant site like Wilmott and they are less aware of some aspects of position sizing than we are here in ET. Certain training and knowledge can be eye-opening or it can be a straitjacket, depending on the individual.

Neural networks were supposed to do what you think genetic programming is capable of doing now. The final rule for supercomputers is still Garbage In Garbage Out.

They are very useful tools for those who fully understand their capabilities and limitations, they are not "partners" who are going to help us issue in some golden age of ultimate wisdom.

Ok, thanks. Care to share your discovery? Surely a money management angle could be shared without diminishing its value. surf

 

[jack hershey]

Quote from ammo:

not logically possible,that would be like everyone getting long at the right spot and selling and turning short again at the right spot all in unison like a school of fish

I was saddened to read your viewpoint. A large supply of market orders does extinguih a trend. That is for sure.

Those that use the Mordrian table know one event before the turn that the turn event is coming. this kind of knowledge would be helpful to all who use such information.

There is proof that the minority control the market. This school of fish you mention is NOT the majority nor will it ever be. there is a pretty good guarrantee that this school IS the minority.

as far as this thread,if you used the ta data across a few correlating ( djt ,djia and spx for example)markets and got the same signals ,it would remain objective

Correlated data is lagging data from the dependent variable as you describe it. certainly this does serve as a TREND TRVER for those who use leading independent varibles of the price valiable which is a dependent variable.

My view is that handling 56 set elements divied into sub sets, has such a low latency that it is not comparable in the manners in which you have chosen.

Further, there is the matter of "lock in" of the "failsafe" protection used in trading. Statisitically significant data elements all lock in before the end of the data parcel.

 

[wrbtrader]

Quote from marketsurfer:

Ok, man, we agree on lots of points. Thank you for the clarification. A question, how do you account for claims made by nodoji, Cornix and others that they only use objective TA and rarely have a losing day??? You state you can not use TA by itself succefully. What's the disconnect here? Thanks. Surf

I don't know how NoDoji, Cornix and others define "Objective TA" (e.g. buy if today's volume > yesterday's volume). Yet, I do know there's also "subjective TA" (e.g. trendlines).

Yet, I have seen them say they use "pure TA" as if to imply they're using nothing else. In contradiction, I have seen them say in other threads how important money management, discipline, trade management, trading experience is to them. Thus, they obviously aren't using TA all by itself in their trading plan.

I say that "discretionary traders" can not profitably use TA alone. In contrast, if it was automated...they could then say its "pure TA" and nothing else. Simply, I don't believe anyone that's a "discretionary trader" saying they only use "objective TA" especially when they are already on record saying there are other components in their trading plan that's important to them.

Too many problems with the semantics of these debates. Folks don't define what they call TA, pure TA, objective TA, subjective TA, discretionary, automation and then if they do define such...others don't agree with the definition. That's probably why these TA debates have continued for +20 years and will continue for as long as there are markets due to the fact most can't agree on the definitions.

As to the issue of "rarely" having a losing trading day. TA alone by itself won't accomplish such. Most of such will be due to the experience of the trader and a great trading plan with all the components working well together along with some luck.

 

[cornix]

Quote from marketsurfer:

No different than an objective pure TA approach with zero other than inputs than price/volume. surf

Alright, but no different in uselessness or usefulness?

P. S. That's how I tested TA vs. random entries. It's easy for me cause I already have a working TA approach. I simply took all the same trade management tricks and nuances of my TA entries and applied them to random entries. According to your and Dr. Maestro's hypothesis result should be the same as success is to be attributed to trade management and not the entry. But results were MUCH different. Which tells me there's still some difference and entries do matter.

 

[cornix]

Quote from Mr Super Trader:

Let me get this straight are you saying T/A is almost like a lagging indicator.

When we talk about double tops, triple tops , wedges , flags all these types of CLASSIC T/A that people charge money to teach and write books about. I will agree that these classic patterns are always showing on charts but the failed times you can't see because your mind is not looking for the failed double top that turned into a breakout or the failed double top that turned into a triple top. And so on. I do believe however that support and resistance works just fine as long as your reward is greater then your risk. On a five minute chart not so much on a weekly chart or daily chart support and resistance with the correct parameters works great. Stop hunter traders like my self make do fairly well trading broken support or resistance due to orders that are place at these levels.


If I operated a hedge fund I would use these patterns as an exit plan. If volume is increasing after a consolidation period and I am happy with my profits I would sell into the liquidity that investors are buying into believing that a breakout is happening. I get out without lowering the price on myself. If I dumped enough capital this would lead to a false break out. I also would have initiated the breakout and waited for biters.


I have a set of T/A that I trade as for all I know it may be original or others may trade what I trade as well. As I have mentioned the exit strategy is why they work. I have never seen it published.I am doing fairly well relative to the capital I am trading. Just a naked chart. I don't at the moment have hundreds of thousands of dollars to trade. But none the less I am a profitable trader using T/A solely. I have also posted my results.

The last thing I am going to do is post real time as my strategy is my work not free to the public.

The problem I have is traders in general have always lacked originality. And your disproving of T/A is only based on classic chart patterns that guru's rip new investors off on a daily basis. So to your credit maybe your article is good constructive criticism for traders who lack originality whom are struggling trying to get rich off patterns that everybody knows about. So yes a lot of these patterns are ambush's . You can't go buy a book like Trading in the Zone and all of a sudden you are a profitable trader.

My problem with your philosophy is you personally don't know of all the original strategies that people trade. Therefore disproving T/A would be impossible.

Also you seem to act childish and make false accusations. And then sometimes you act reasonable. Maybe if you want some type of credibility you should change the way you act and maybe you might be surprised of the compromise you may receive.

Actually I don't disprove TA, I trade myself based on TA patterns and absolutely agree with you successful TA patterns are slightly different in application than what's taught in books. If it was that simple as see a douple top and enter then it would be too easy for the money trading offers. Having said that, DTs/DBs and other classic patterns still do work, but within proper context.

 

[cornix]

Quote from marketsurfer:

No, it's not and can not be predictive. Even the MTA disagrees with you ( to the best of my knowledge). If it was predictive, why wouldn't the super computers that search non stop for such patterns, find them, exploit them and cause them to cease being predictive?

For the same simple reason robots still can't substitute humans in most professions: too many inputs. Some day I believe they will do it.

 

[jem]

The Predictors did not start making money til they started understanding the markets and trading the short term patterns they found. Then they pounded the hell out of them til they stopped working.

I knew someone who was there. One of the more interesting minds in trading at the time.

Patterns found via algo or data mining or patterns found by looking at a chart... its all t/a.

Quote from marketsurfer:

The predictors was written in 1991 and UBS believed there was enough validity to the predictive power of supercomputers way back then to purchase the firm/technology. Imagine how far things have progressed.

What about genetic evolving predatory algorithms that are able to morph depending on the market nvironmnt? Sounds pretty impressive to me.