Technical Analysis does not work, never did, never will

[viruscore1]

I'm curious. In this driving analogy of yours, what method is "the windshield" that lets you see "the road ahead" (aka the future)?

Take a moment and Think about what you said. Funny thing is you're right, the future is ahead of you, history is behind you. if you think you can tell the future using technical analysis analyzing artifacts so beit. You can rationalize anything if you think long enough. Remember No one has a crystal ball, it's just an analogy.

 

[viruscore1]

From what some apparent experts have said, there actually are secret price action patterns that provide a huge edge, but you won't find them in any books etc.
The rest of us just need to find them! *fingers crossed*

You're right, once you find it evrything makes sense and you keep it close and make $

 

[kut2k2]

Take a moment and Think about what you said. Funny thing is you're right, the future is ahead of you, history is behind you. if you think you can tell the future using technical analysis analyzing artifacts so beit. You can rationalize anything if you think long enough. Remember No one has a crystal ball, it's just an analogy.

It's a misleading analogy. Left unsaid is that you're driving a car with an opaque windshield. So why rag on TA for only providing you with a rearview and side views when the exact same argument applies to every other form of analysis (FA, QA, etc.)?

You can't directly see the road ahead. So either stop driving or make due with the information you have (the past and the present).

 

[viruscore1]

It's a misleading analogy. Left unsaid is that you're driving a car with an opaque windshield. So why rag on TA for only providing you with a rearview and side views when the exact same argument applies to every other form of analysis (FA, QA, etc.)?

You can't directly see the road ahead. So either stop driving or make due with the information you have (the past and the present).

However misleading to you, it makes total sense as an analogy. FYI technical analysis looks into artifacts which is historical. You mean you can not see the road ahead when looking thru a windshield, when others do. My car does not come with opaque windshield, if your car does, you donot understand the word opaque. Your argument doesn't hold water. Write down your definition of technical analysis, then compare to actual definition. I work with quants, conceptually we're right 100% of the time, lol. However, in reality maybe 50% of the time. I hate it when wantabe's throw around TLA, FA - Financial analysis/Fundamental Analysis. FYI neither one is pure technical analysis, QA could equate to Quality Assurance/Quant Analysis. FYI TLA is Two/Three Letter Acronym. If you can't dazzle with brilliance you baffle with bullsh!t. Remember this is an analogy, need definition?

 

[Sergio77]

Quant is also TA at another level, I am not saying higher or better. I also think that quant is much worse than good old TA. One of my math profs said once that if math could say anything useful about the markets he wouldn't be teaching but living in Bahamas.

Most of my questions about TA were settled after I read this book. I recommend it because it can save a lot of money and most importantly time.

 

[viruscore1]

Quant is also TA at another level, I am not saying higher or better. I also think that quant is much worse than good old TA. One of my math profs said once that if math could say anything useful about the markets he wouldn't be teaching but living in Bahamas.

Most of my questions about TA were settled after I read this book. I recommend it because it can save a lot of money and most importantly time.

Thanks, I only look at TA for historical reasons. Represents a fraction of my analysis, as it should. If it wasn't for TA many will need to trade for a living or find another career. Many TA hawksters may not like this thread but I'm not here to please them.

 

[eganon69]

I think this analogy of TA and driving is flawed when saying its like looking in the rear view mirror and predicting where you are going. In fact, I think for me it's more like being a passenger in the car looking out the front windshield and someone else is driving. None of us control the market so none of us are driving. However, the driver is sometimes our grandmother that tends to sway across the lane often back and forth and doesn't drive in a straight line (maintains support and resistance in the price channel). Sometimes she speeds up and sometimes she slows down for other cars in our way (consolidation in an overall trend, ie bull flags or similar pattern). Often, she maintains the same highway (trend or sideways price range) for long periods of times but switches lanes (price channels) periodically. I cannot predict when grandma will switch lanes or speed up/slow down 100% of the time. But judging by her driving habits and what I feel and see the car is doing I can make an educated guess what she and the car will do. Sometimes she fakes me out and makes me think she will cross over to another lane when crossing the line but then pulls it back in the original lane at the last second (failed breakout). The INDICATORS I have to predict that are her speed and braking and turning of the wheel and what I feel in the seat of my pants (all momentum indicators). I use TA indicators this way. I can't predict everything and sometimes I have to wait for an action to be initiated by the markets (grandma) before I can make a guess what she will do. Sometimes she maintains swaying (bouncing off support and resistance) in the same lane and sometimes she crosses into a new lane (price channel but maintaining the same trend , ie highway). But the curbs act as REALLY strong long term resistance and will usually keep her on path when she hits those. I can usually predict that a bit sooner than weak resistance of lane lines (price channels).

It's fine to say you don't think TA works or whatever, but thousands and maybe more make use of these indicators as a way of life in the markets. I would say socialists are stupid for believing what they believe but many of them are hell bent in believing what they want. I will not convince them. So we just agree to disagree.

My 0.02

 

[kut2k2]

However misleading to you, it makes total sense as an analogy. FYI technical analysis looks into artifacts which is historical. You mean you can not see the road ahead when looking thru a windshield, when others do. My car does not come with opaque windshield, if your car does, you donot understand the word opaque. Your argument doesn't hold water. Write down your definition of technical analysis, then compare to actual definition. I work with quants, conceptually we're right 100% of the time, lol. However, in reality maybe 50% of the time. I hate it when wantabe's throw around TLA, FA - Financial analysis/Fundamental Analysis. FYI neither one is pure technical analysis, QA could equate to Quality Assurance/Quant Analysis. FYI TLA is Two/Three Letter Acronym. If you can't dazzle with brilliance you baffle with bullsh!t. Remember this is an analogy, need definition?

FFS how thick are you? You said "TA is like driving forward looking in the review mirror.". The only way "your" analogy (not really *yours*, I've heard this car crap over ten years ago) makes any sense at all is the following:

"Road" = time
"Looking in the rearview mirror" = analysis of past data (and present data in my case; I also use the "side windows")
"The road ahead" = the future
"Windshield (clear)" = ability to directly see the future

Your analogy fails because you're "driving a car" with an opaque windshield. Because you can't see the future.

If you're too stupid to realize this, sucks to be you.

 

[I Know You]

Quant is also TA at another level, I am not saying higher or better. I also think that quant is much worse than good old TA. One of my math profs said once that if math could say anything useful about the markets he wouldn't be teaching but living in Bahamas.

Most of my questions about TA were settled after I read this book. I recommend it because it can save a lot of money and most importantly time.

About the author:

About

Michael Harris started trading stocks and commodity and currency futures 25 years ago. He is also a developer of advanced pattern recognition software for the benefit of position and swing traders. Michael developed APS Automatic Pattern Search software which has received great acclaim and more recently Price Action Lab, a program that is used by both systematic and discretionary traders to develop trading systems and analyze price action. Price Action Lab also includes the p-indicator, which is an advanced indicator based on price patterns.

-------------------------

And this is the author of the book that apparently proves that chart based trading can not be profitable.

 

[viruscore1]

FFS how thick are you? You said "TA is like driving forward looking in the review mirror.". The only way "your" analogy (not really *yours*, I've heard this car crap over ten years ago) makes any sense at all is the following:

"Road" = time
"Looking in the rearview mirror" = analysis of past data (and present data in my case; I also use the "side windows")
"The road ahead" = the future
"Windshield (clear)" = ability to directly see the future

Your analogy fails because you're "driving a car" with an opaque windshield. Because you can't see the future.

If you're too stupid to realize this, sucks to be you.

Hey we need traders like you, especially the angry one's. For every winning trade I will take money out of your pocket. Take a pill and trade on looser...