Technical Analysis = CRAP

[marketsurfer]

Quote from logic_man:

So, because you failed to be successful with something that may or may not be somewhat similar to the ACD method, the ACD method can't work?

What kind of logic is that?

Huh? Why are you saying things I never said? I never heard of the ACD method-- is it a rip off of Crabel's ORB? Several parts of Crabel's ORB was incorporated into the neo Gann death channel that was wildly successful for awhile--- I believe RCG will confirm.

Surf

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from RCG Trader:

That's "hem and haw", and it's the King's English.

So, you are taking statements now? earlier you said you would not.

Ha, yeah, you're right!

No, statements don't indicate method. will mean nothing in this argument.

Surf

 

[logic_man]

Quote from marketsurfer:

Huh? Why are you saying things I never said? I never heard of the ACD method-- is it a rip off of Crabel's ORB?

Surf

I doubt it's a straight lifting of Crabel, so who really cares whether or not Crabel influenced it? Clearly, even if Crabel did influence it, the guy isn't going to just do the exact same thing in developing ACD, he's going to look for ways to fix the flaws.

You may not have said it directly, but your post implied quite strongly that because your efforts with Crabel failed that meant that ACD (if in fact it was based on Crabel) would fail. Otherwise, why bring up the fact that you had failed with Crabel's method, when I didn't mention Crabel at all?

 

[logic_man]

Quote from marketsurfer:

Ha, yeah, you're right!

No, statements don't indicate method. will mean nothing in this argument.

Surf

So, basically, you use the statements as a way of weeding out those who clearly are failures, then, among the subset of those who are successful, you demand the method in order to verify success derives from some variant of technical analysis rather than some other way?

Anyone who would take you up on that is a fool. Since fools are unlikely to develop successful trading methods, I suspect you will always lack for evidence. But remember what the man said, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from logic_man:

I doubt it's a straight lifting of Crabel, so who really cares whether or not Crabel influenced it? Clearly, even if Crabel did influence it, the guy isn't going to just do the exact same thing in developing ACD, he's going to look for ways to fix the flaws.

You may not have said it directly, but your post implied quite strongly that because your efforts with Crabel failed that meant that ACD (if in fact it was based on Crabel) would fail. Otherwise, why bring up the fact that you had failed with Crabel's method, when I didn't mention Crabel at all?

Huh? How do you get failure out of "wildly successful" ? That's one weird jump--- yes, all fixed methods, including my neogann fail eventually as markets change.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from logic_man:

So, basically, you use the statements as a way of weeding out those who clearly are failures, then, among the subset of those who are successful, you demand the method in order to verify success derives from some variant of technical analysis rather than some other way?

Anyone who would take you up on that is a fool. Since fools are unlikely to develop successful trading methods, I suspect you will always lack for evidence. But remember what the man said, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".

You can't read? It was my firm who weeded out applicants based on statements for the initial interview. We didn't care if they used TA astrology or psychic powers-- just wanted to see performance. Totally different scenario than my argument on this thread that fixed objective TA methods simply don't work in general, and if they do-- the winning streak will not last. Particullarly those TA gurus on this thread without a shred of evidence.

By the way, the only fool is the person who would give trading authority on a 10 million USD account to someone without evidence.

 

[logic_man]

Quote from marketsurfer:

Huh? How do you get failure out of "wildly successful" ? That's one weird jump--- yes, all fixed methods, including my neogann fail eventually as markets change.

My understanding is that for the purposes of this thread, "failure" is defined as "eventually stops working" and that even being "wildly successful" for some period of time means that the method is a failure overall. Is that not what you've been saying?

The market "changes" are more superficial than real. The basic logic of the market can't change as long as people disagree on price because that's what drives the market, disagreement. Are you saying that people are going to suddenly stop disagreeing? I'm not interested in giving away anything about what that logic entails, other than to say that you see it play out just as clearly on a chart from two decades ago as it played out on Friday and I'm sure will play out tomorrow and the day after that, too. Whether disagreement is played out by little robots in computers or guys writing out orders on slips of paper is irrelevant.

 

[Fireplace]

Excellent!!

Quote from logic_man:

I'm not interested in giving away anything about what that logic entails, other than to say that you see it play out just as clearly on a chart from two decades ago as it played out on Friday and I'm sure will play out tomorrow and the day after that, too. Whether disagreement is played out by little robots in computers or guys writing out orders on slips of paper is irrelevant.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from logic_man:

My understanding is that for the purposes of this thread, "failure" is defined as "eventually stops working" and that even being "wildly successful" for some period of time means that the method is a failure overall. Is that not what you've been saying?

The market "changes" are more superficial than real. The basic logic of the market can't change as long as people disagree on price because that's what drives the market, disagreement. Are you saying that people are going to suddenly stop disagreeing? I'm not interested in giving away anything about what that logic entails, other than to say that you see it play out just as clearly on a chart from two decades ago as it played out on Friday and I'm sure will play out tomorrow and the day after that, too. Whether disagreement is played out by little robots in computers or guys writing out orders on slips of paper is irrelevant.

That's all well and good---- but still you and the other objective TA true believers have FAILED to offer anything into evidence other than rhetoric, claims and blustery proclamations that your objective TA system has any value.

How about a few before the fact calls, a before the fact journal, anything other than the reposting of charts recording the markets transitions. I have done it ( in public ) for 11 plus years-- where's your evidence?

surf

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from Fireplace:

Excellent!!

Getting double teamed here by the logical family.