Technical Analysis Doesn't Work

[rcanfiel]

Quote from kut2k2:

Speaking strictly for myself, here's my agenda: I believe whatever untainted evidence indicates. Emphasis on untainted.

I was willing to believe the TA studies about the uselessness of classical TA until it was brought to my attention that most (all?) of the researchers have seriously screwed up their experimental design, a point that you seem eager to sweep under the rug.

This is a whacko statement without merit. Forum posters who throw a few chunks up and say "I disagree" disproves little.

This doesn't mean that classical TA is vindicated, but it does mean that the investigations you heavily relied on now need to be validated by those outside of academia who have real-world trade-system design experience.

Fine, let them step forward.

You've committed the same logical fallacy as those who cite anecdotal cases or "I know somebody ..." in defense of classical TA when you say "peer reviewed!" whenever anybody questions those studies. Sorry, peer review is no guarantee of scientific validity; if it was, every scientific paper ever published would be an advancement in science, and I've read too many that were anything-but to believe that conclusion.

No fallacy was committed, in part because people disagreeing does not disprove the original works. People think these are barroom discoveries tossed to a journal are quite ignorant. Published studies are the results of a lot of work, serious inquiries and exhaustive examination and significant review by other organizations to prove their validity. Being cavalier or even error can cost one a tenured position at a university or other institution and/or longterm loss of reputation in the field. They are quite rigorous, the several previous posts to the contrary adding nothing to reality.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from Paulds11:

Thunderdog, good reply (previously as well )

.. believe in choice number 2 ie. he is "grappling with a cognitive deficit", and he and his friends try to make up for thier disdain for anything academic by pure dogged intransigence.. and an unwillingness to move the argument forward in any constructive way... thier minds are made up before you even posted your comment... one of them had the audacity to even question my English and spelling ignoring the clear logic laid fourth in the rebuttal to thier nonsense which of course is a smokescreen..

There are certain unspoken rules of engagement on these boards, on of which is an ability to admit when one is wrong, take the information onboard and modify ones point using that. There has been absolutely no acceptance that even resistance or support are used by the MAJORITY of traders. No discussion can move forward unless that basic tenet is accepted, and he wont accept it... its like speaking to a 5 year old about Philosophy

The thread is dead.. you cant argue with entrenched trailer park ignorance

wow, surely this must be some kind of prank post. disdain for academics because academic studies and most traders experience indicate that TA is nebulous and a subjective art form of dubious value?? surely you must be joking--- the TA true believers have a disdain for anything that disproves their religion---not the other way around as you state. Ever wonder why Don Bright, who overseas 100's if not 1000's of day traders and has a vested interest in keeping them happy/succesful doesn't push TA, but rather a multitude of other strategies designed to provide real edges??

it really looks easy on a chart, after the move, doesn't it?? seriously,man, you either accept 100's of studies OR continue to live in a delusion and learn the hardway. one way or another, you will learn.

why would i admit that im wrong with all the evidence on the side of the failure of TA to be of objective value and nothing on your side other than anecdotal tales, hero worship, hearsay, and survivorship biases? am i to admit that the MAJORITY of rigorous studies of every type of TA showing its dubious nature are wrong, and accept the evidence that you put forth?? you have gotta be kidding me!

regards,

surf

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from Cutten:

Don't forget frequency, and the amount of capital at the trader's disposal. Even with the best trading skills on earth, they won't do you any good if your setup happens once every 25 years, or if you have a $10k account.

excellent point. thanks!

best,

surf

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from Cutten:

I can give you one example that works. In a not 100% efficient market, which has a high correlation to a bigger market, go on the bid when the bigger market starts going up. Go on the offer when the bigger market starts going down. If you get filled, look to exit as soon as the market trades at fair value (in most cases the mid price, but sometimes you will have to hit a bid-offer if the major market move reverses).

Of course, most markets don't stay inefficient forever, but I've seen various markets which remain inefficient for a number of years. Good examples include the Eurostoxx 50 and SMI in the late 90s to early 2000s, CME currencies on Globex up until a couple of years ago, small internet stocks during the bubble. You could literally just make a market and turn statistically very significant profits from this approach, simply because there was not enough competition from others trying to do the same, and there was sufficient paper in the market that didn't care about capturing a tiny edge of a few ticks on non-institutional size.

ok, is this TA? seems like intermarket analysis, tape reading method. thanks!
surf

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from Paulds11:

marketsurfer

Ive seen enough of this thread.. for me to realize what a langing doofus you are.. to the point that you wont even consider or concede to reason... (which I alway6s will in the context of learning)

you choose spelling and grammar over logic and wisdom.. as such what hope have you over nations that choose to converse even outside these boundaries?

I support wisdom , intelligence, logic and informed bias over my own but I do not support those who are illogical, ephemeral, clandestine or immoral (although thats a tough one since I will take a line of coke speed, weed and Red bull in a party... gosh perhaps not... atmosphere... but this isnt a moral argument so dont use it to argue.... lets get real and stick to the facts.. not the drugs...

interesting post, paul, however wrong. how do you reach the conclusion that i choose spelling and grammer over logic?? i concur about that which you support---- best wishes, surf

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from rcanfiel:

...Published studies are the results of a lot of work, serious inquiries and exhaustive examination and significant review by other organizations to prove their validity...

Some are, and some aren't. It is not nearly as clear cut or uniform as you present it. If you really believe what you wrote, then your comment strongly suggests that you are not an academic yourself, but only in awe of those whom you regard as being such.

Further, to readily accept the conclusions of studies about whose structure/parameters/criteria you almost certainly know nothing about in any specific and meaningful detail only causes a reader to believe that you are an academic groupie rather than a scholar yourself. Marketsurfer, does that sound familiar? Very few legitimate academics readily tout the results of a study before carefully assessing its validity, reliability and accuracy. So don't get too lofty just because you happened to have read a few abstracts. (And if I had to guess, I'd say that you probably just read someone else's summary of those abstracts rather than the abstracts themselves.)

 

[Paulds11]

Quote from rcanfiel:

...Published studies are the results of a lot of work, serious inquiries and exhaustive examination and significant review by other organizations to prove their validity...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


rcanfiel

this is exactly why I despise you.. read your own English and the sentiment therein.. you explain an issue threefold... your not educated. and you dont see it do you?..

Please understand before you get it so badly wrong later.. your looking pathetic

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Some are, and some aren't. It is not nearly as clear cut or uniform as you present it. If you really believe what you wrote, then your comment strongly suggests that you are not an academic yourself, but only in awe of those whom you regard as being such.

Further, to readily accept the conclusions of studies about whose structure/parameters/criteria you almost certainly know nothing about in any specific and meaningful detail only causes a reader to believe that you are an academic groupie rather than a scholar yourself. Marketsurfer, does that sound familiar? Very few legitimate academics readily tout the results of a study before carefully assessing its validity, reliability and accuracy. So don't get too lofty just because you happened to have read a few abstracts. (And if I had to guess, I'd say that you probably just read someone else's summary of those abstracts rather than the abstracts themselves.)

Tdog,

the issue is we are not talking about one study,one researcher, one tested TA idea. there are 100's of academic studies, 10000's of traders poor results, every permutation of TA tested, and simple objective logic that clearly indicate that TA is far from the science the true believers and, of course, the market infrastructure want one to believe.

as far as being an academic groupie---- well, i have some groupies who are academics.....

surfer

in NYC party central this weekend

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Some are, and some aren't. It is not nearly as clear cut or uniform as you present it. If you really believe what you wrote, then your comment strongly suggests that you are not an academic yourself, but only in awe of those whom you regard as being such.

Further, to readily accept the conclusions of studies about whose structure/parameters/criteria you almost certainly know nothing about in any specific and meaningful detail only causes a reader to believe that you are an academic groupie rather than a scholar yourself. Marketsurfer, does that sound familiar? Very few legitimate academics readily tout the results of a study before carefully assessing its validity, reliability and accuracy. So don't get too lofty just because you happened to have read a few abstracts. (And if I had to guess, I'd say that you probably just read someone else's summary of those abstracts rather than the abstracts themselves.)

Great post, TD, but it won't register with him. He thinks he can play the peer-review card even when faced with specific evidence that the TA study methodology is flawed. It's like a prosecutor trying to defend a guilty verdict even when later DNA testing shows that an innocent person was convicted. Hopeless.

For those who care about the truth, here's the only passage concerning trade size in the last paper rcanfiel trumpeted:

"... aside from the initial margins, no cash payment is made at the time the position is opened. Initial margin is deposited but this a good faith deposit that is returned to the trade redeemed to the trader (along with accrued interests and marking-tomarket profits or losses rather than an investment."

The only conclusion I can draw is that these "scientists" were all-in, all-out in their trading. Anyone here who has ever done any backtesting knows how that can affect your results vis-à-vis a more reasonable trade size. Nuff said.

 

[kut2k2]

BTW, this paper was not proofread. In the above passage alone, you can see a missing word ("is") and a missing right parenthesis. And in the abstract, they misspell "complement" as "compliment".

Publish or perish, indeed