TA - Objective or Psychological Skill?

[justrading]

Quote from NoDoji:

As long as the same illusion/delusion keeps working, I'll keep believing in it.

This is actually the most enjoyable part of the discussion for me.

The experts prove in myriad ways that TA does not work.

What they can't prove, for obvious reasons, is that nobody makes money using TA.

In the absence of empirical evidence and pure logic, enter creative thinking.....

If you make money using TA, (fill in the blanks).

One of my favourite nobodies (who apparently made the odd buck) is Marty Schwartz.

http://www.curatedalpha.com/2011/curated-interview-with-marty-schwartz-from-market-wizards/

"Did you make a complete transition from fundamental to technical analysis?

Absolutely. I always laugh at people who say, “I’ve never met a rich technician.” I love that! It is such an arrogant, nonsensical response. I used fundamentals for nine years and got rich as a technician."

Of course we all know the answer to that is it can't be done nowadays, nothing that worked then works now.

Question: if you tested TA through the period Marty made money, until today, and the test consistently shows you can't make money using that method, and we know for a fact that Marty made money using that method, does that mean that the 'proof' it won't work today is invalid?

Sorry, forgot, Marty was just one of the billions of monkeys pounding away on keyboards who quite by chance wrote the complete works of Shakespeare. Or perhaps it was crowd sourced, as in a few monkeys came up with the material.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from justrading:

This is actually the most enjoyable part of the discussion for me.

The experts prove in myriad ways that TA does not work.

What they can't prove, for obvious reasons, is that nobody makes money using TA.

In the absence of empirical evidence and pure logic, enter creative thinking.....

If you make money using TA, (fill in the blanks).

One of my favourite nobodies (who apparently made the odd buck) is Marty Schwartz.

http://www.curatedalpha.com/2011/curated-interview-with-marty-schwartz-from-market-wizards/

"Did you make a complete transition from fundamental to technical analysis?

Absolutely. I always laugh at people who say, “I’ve never met a rich technician.” I love that! It is such an arrogant, nonsensical response. I used fundamentals for nine years and got rich as a technician."

Of course we all know the answer to that is it can't be done nowadays, nothing that worked then works now.

Question: if you tested TA through the period Marty made money, until today, and the test consistently shows you can't make money using that method, and we know for a fact that Marty made money using that method, does that mean that the 'proof' it won't work today is invalid?

Sorry, forgot, Marty was just one of the billions of monkeys pounding away on keyboards who quite by chance wrote the complete works of Shakespeare. Or perhaps it was crowd sourced, as in a few monkeys came up with the material.

In all seriousness, isn't that guy from the 1970's early 1980's? What's he doing today? I can nearly certainly guarantee, it has nothing to do with TA in the way TA is thought of on this board-- price action and predicting the next move with enough accuracy to tilt a series of trades into profitability.

 

[justrading]

Quote from marketsurfer:

In all seriousness, isn't that guy from the 1970's early 1980's? What's he doing today? I can nearly certainly guarantee, it has nothing to do with TA in the way TA is thought of on this board-- price action and predicting the next move with enough accuracy to tilt a series of trades into profitability.

From my post;

Of course we all know the answer to that is it can't be done nowadays, nothing that worked then works now.

Question: if you tested TA through the period Marty made money, until today, and the test consistently shows you can't make money using that method, and we know for a fact that Marty made money using that method, does that mean that the 'proof' it won't work today is invalid?

Boringly predictable Surf. Go practise changing diapers.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from justrading:

From my post;

Of course we all know the answer to that is it can't be done nowadays, nothing that worked then works now.

Question: if you tested TA through the period Marty made money, until today, and the test consistently shows you can't make money using that method, and we know for a fact that Marty made money using that method, does that mean that the 'proof' it won't work today is invalid?

Boringly predictable Surf. Go practise changing diapers.

No, it proves he wasn't telling the full truth or his understanding of TA is different than the price action traders of elite. Like Jem said--- he used TA to find stocks out of synch with the overall market ---- this use of TA for intra market analysis is a completely different thing than claiming it provides enough predictive power to tilt the odds into profitability over a series.

PS--- I have been practicing! Any day now....

 

[justrading]

Quote from marketsurfer:

No, it proves he wasn't telling the full truth or his understanding of TA is different than the price action traders of elite. Like Jem said--- he used TA to find stocks out of synch with the overall market ---- this use of TA for intra market analysis is a completely different thing than claiming it provides enough predictive power to tilt the odds into profitability over a series.

PS--- I have been practicing! Any day now....

If your definition of TA is using past price to predict future price, what's the difference?

As for tilting the odds, Marty did it a lot better than most.

 

[Ol' Yella]

Quote from NoDoji:

I have an individual method of trading off these classic TA patterns. I've posted my strategies via annotated charts here on ET. I've taught my strategies to several others. None of the people I've taught them to have been able to make a living off them.

Quote from NoDoji:

I have ways to explain my methods to just about anybody. I've taught it to several people, quite a few of whom "got it". Those who "got it" can tell you where I went long or short each day and why.

Just curious-- the above statements seem contradictory. The first makes it seem the students are not successful, and the second seems to indicate the opposite.

could you clarify? thanks!

 

[HopelessTrader]

I believe that there are many different ways to profit in trading. Objective TA is one of them. Subjective TA is another. Combining the two is yet another. There are also many other ways to profit from trading.

With that said, I believe it is mostly of little value to try to convince a non TA believer otherwise. Doing so leads to them wanting proof, which leads to discussion of edge, or proof of this or that.. blah blah. I believe it's better to let a person remain in the dark, if they are not willing to pay the price, the price being sweat, blood, and tears. As someone once said, "Some things can not be taught. They can only be learned. "

 

[dom993]

NoDoji,

I would be interested in making an attempt at automating one of your setups ... PM me if you want to discuss further.

Cheers
D.

 

[cornix]

Quote from marketsurfer:

Amen.. TA is decietful, and extremely seductive at the same time. I have been trying to spread this message, but the internet delusions of success stories keep trying to keep the myth going. surf

But if it makes money... what to do? Drop it?

 

[cornix]

Quote from MAESTRO:

Absolutely not. I am not arguing that people who use TA make money. I am arguing that people who make money mistakenly believe that they make money because of TA. If you happen to be on a winning streak of a coin tossing game it makes no difference to the probabilities of the game itself. It simply sets a pattern in your head that sounds something like “I must have done something right because I made money”. And instantly the patter jumps ahead – “I used TA”. That must be the reason. Cause and effect are connected in your brain and reinforced over the time period. That happens because of the arcsine law of probabilities. Once the random walk takes to one side it rarely wonders to another. I doubt, however, that you will see it. Those delusions a very strong! And no, I am not condescending at all! I am just tired of repeating those experiments and finding the truth without being able to convince people who fell under the spell of the illusion of randomness. Please understand; your success has absolutely nothing to do with your TA and there is no way your success could be repeated by anyone else including yourself if you started all over again.

I respectfully disagree, personally knowing people who copied some of patterns I recommended them and are on their way to consistency with the lapses mostly be in the area of discipline than technical side.