You're right of course, these nuances COULD be deeply analyzed and determined and then objectified. My only contention is that it may be too difficult to identify and then create the logic to be coded. I won't say impossible but it would be incredibly tough.
TA - Objective or Psychological Skill?
- Thread starter cornix
- Start date
Hi rask and corn.
Please consider logic.
It is a good idea to restrict proofs to what is logically possible.
Year after year in ET, people speak of proving TA does not work. This is a proof that is outside of reason and logic.
I like problem solving and inventing using allowable materials.
My conclusion is that most people do go out on limbs away from the very tall trunk of the system of the market's operation.
It is probably a good idea to keep notes on who gets to where in solving the system of the mrket's operation.
Another important pragmatic consideration is setting the standard of what is the markt's full offer.
I sometimes imagine what ET could be like if there was a rule set for participating in a cooperative manner.
In self teaching, it is very important to recognize when you have gone astray. People allow unproven beliefs to become embedded in their minds and then they build upon these by going further and further out on a limb.
Please consider logic.
It is a good idea to restrict proofs to what is logically possible.
Year after year in ET, people speak of proving TA does not work. This is a proof that is outside of reason and logic.
I like problem solving and inventing using allowable materials.
My conclusion is that most people do go out on limbs away from the very tall trunk of the system of the market's operation.
It is probably a good idea to keep notes on who gets to where in solving the system of the mrket's operation.
Another important pragmatic consideration is setting the standard of what is the markt's full offer.
I sometimes imagine what ET could be like if there was a rule set for participating in a cooperative manner.
In self teaching, it is very important to recognize when you have gone astray. People allow unproven beliefs to become embedded in their minds and then they build upon these by going further and further out on a limb.
Jack,
Ironically, despite I never managed to study trading the way you taught during our Yahoo messenger conversations back in 2006 (or 7, I already forgot, ha), some of your drills indeed are very helpful for newbies. Carefully observing and writing down every bar of market action for example. Tunes oneself for a proper focus.
Ironically, despite I never managed to study trading the way you taught during our Yahoo messenger conversations back in 2006 (or 7, I already forgot, ha), some of your drills indeed are very helpful for newbies. Carefully observing and writing down every bar of market action for example. Tunes oneself for a proper focus.
The very premise of objective technical analysis is fatally flawed.
The premise is that past price can be relied upon to increase the odds of a continuation or discontinuation of a move into the future.
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Yet due to the power of hindsight bias, the idea has captured even the very intelligent among us as fact.
It is due to this pervasive hindsight bias that TA can ONLY be evaluated by rigerous testing. When these tests are applied, TA fails to provide any type of statistical odds outside of that which could be explained by simple randomness.
IF skilled subjective users of TA exist, their success is due to superior money management, perhaps intuitive ability, I don't know. I will not argue with those who claim to do it or if wizards or savants exist or not in the markets---- If someone says they have seen an angell or demon, I cant' argue with them-- just like the TA folks.
TA does have a purpose of describing what has happened and providing a context from which to make decisions. It DOES NOT answer the question to go long or short.
surf
The premise is that past price can be relied upon to increase the odds of a continuation or discontinuation of a move into the future.
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Yet due to the power of hindsight bias, the idea has captured even the very intelligent among us as fact.
It is due to this pervasive hindsight bias that TA can ONLY be evaluated by rigerous testing. When these tests are applied, TA fails to provide any type of statistical odds outside of that which could be explained by simple randomness.
IF skilled subjective users of TA exist, their success is due to superior money management, perhaps intuitive ability, I don't know. I will not argue with those who claim to do it or if wizards or savants exist or not in the markets---- If someone says they have seen an angell or demon, I cant' argue with them-- just like the TA folks.
TA does have a purpose of describing what has happened and providing a context from which to make decisions. It DOES NOT answer the question to go long or short.
surf
I was wondering when you would join the party.
Take your time, read this, and tell me what you think when done.
http://www.naaim.org/wp-content/upl..._example_of_trend_following_Lukasz_Wojtow.pdf
I enjoy ET and one of he facets is the illogical reasoning of participants. I am not saying this to be negative in any way.
As an observer I am just looking at how people get into trouble by their own undoing.
Here in this post above each of the paragraphs is proven to be incorrect by its replacement truth.
FYI I only work in the present and by analyzing the future as it moves into the present. I trade only with leading indicators of price (Price, in mathematical terms, is the dependent variable)
I am long @ 29.25 as of bar 52 close. This is a statement derived from the independent variable of the market.
thanks, JT. very interesting! I passed it along to my group and I will take a close look--- I'll get back to you soon. surf
You passed it along to an academic or your group? Before you edited your post, you said you passed it to an academic with much more skill than you and now you've changed the post to say that you will take a close look. Which is it?
Correct, I saw the same response.
?