hmmm. i guess entertainment has no place in jack's pantheon.
surf
Technical Analysis Doesn't Work
- Thread starter rcanfiel
- Start date
- Status
hmmm. i guess entertainment has no place in jack's pantheon.
surf
Yes, you are correct.
For me, the classic was in 1934.
Pring is humor as I popinted out to surf in my initial recent post.
the last time I glanced ast one of his canned hourlies he was using 1997 charts.
When I asked him (twice since he didn't think he heard what I asked) how important channel overlap was, he replied to the audience that he didn't understand the question. I agreed with him and thanked him for his thoughts. he certainly doen't understand the Q's.
He did not adopt the revised defaults on MACD until four years after they were more or less locked in stone. He finally did adopt the new convention. I wrote the FAQ for MACD even further back than that.
It is one thing to parrot the party line (surf is doing this) and it is another thing to operate where the rubber meets the road.
Quote from marketsurfer:
hmmm. i guess entertainment has no place in jack's pantheon.
surf
I've been on the Improv stage many a time and in several different cities: particularly Boston and Philly.
Quote from Lamont_C:
However, if your definition of TA is completely inaccurate, don't be shocked if those who participate in the thread decide to pick up the ball and play in another field, particularly if the other field defines the rules correctly.
That is your concept. There are many who disagree with you, some of which posted earlier in this forum. Labelling some as incorrect and yourself correct purely because you think so dismisses your entire post as interesting to me.
Goodbye
However, if your definition of TA is completely inaccurate, don't be shocked if those who participate in the thread decide to pick up the ball and play in another field, particularly if the other field defines the rules correctly.
That is your concept. There are many who disagree with you, some of which posted earlier in this forum. Labelling some as incorrect and yourself correct purely because you think so dismisses your entire post as interesting to me.
Goodbye
Quote from jack hershey:
By the numbers...
Informed trader means using a sound basis for trading.
Some 95% of leveraged traders lose their money, mostly trying to use TA methods.
Many of the people who claim to be successful traders confuse being at the "top" due to sheer luck. When 100,000 people trade, there is always going to be a thousand who are in the top 1%.
Many of those people outright lie about success, as is the commonly held belief about many who so claim here on ET.
The sheer volume of fraudulent vendors, trading room providers and others also does not bode well. Few can trade successfully, and sell it instead.
The sheer paucity of successful CTAs, many of whom depend on TA, does not bode well.
The OP outlined what many of the responses would be, because most claimed TA is little more than water dowsing.
Pure price action I have respect for. Indicators, patterns, volume and other things fail when subjected to exhaustive, longterm independent testing. At best, they are "lagging indicators" which predict the past.
I am a scientist and statistician when it comes to trading. Anecdotes, testimonies and the other things in the OP remain pretty much in the realm of belief and delusion. People who lift themselves up as the 5% based on their own testimony never move or impress me. When challenged, they provide much smoke, but little evidence.
Again, I have seen nothing to indicate to the contrary.
By the numbers...
Informed trader means using a sound basis for trading.
Some 95% of leveraged traders lose their money, mostly trying to use TA methods.
Many of the people who claim to be successful traders confuse being at the "top" due to sheer luck. When 100,000 people trade, there is always going to be a thousand who are in the top 1%.
Many of those people outright lie about success, as is the commonly held belief about many who so claim here on ET.
The sheer volume of fraudulent vendors, trading room providers and others also does not bode well. Few can trade successfully, and sell it instead.
The sheer paucity of successful CTAs, many of whom depend on TA, does not bode well.
The OP outlined what many of the responses would be, because most claimed TA is little more than water dowsing.
Pure price action I have respect for. Indicators, patterns, volume and other things fail when subjected to exhaustive, longterm independent testing. At best, they are "lagging indicators" which predict the past.
I am a scientist and statistician when it comes to trading. Anecdotes, testimonies and the other things in the OP remain pretty much in the realm of belief and delusion. People who lift themselves up as the 5% based on their own testimony never move or impress me. When challenged, they provide much smoke, but little evidence.
Again, I have seen nothing to indicate to the contrary.
Technical analysis as such wont give you an edge.. it's the manner in which your brain interprets the price action that matters.. I can see the same chart without an MA on it and feel lost.. as soon as I replace the MA I see patterns that speak to me.. but it has very little to do with the MA
Let those that have ears..
Let those that have ears..
Jack when you say that informed trader recognize each other you are right of course
Can you tell me something
can you clarify to all of us
the public trading contest where you lost 20 something percent
why did you do it, did you suddenly decide not to demonstrate your trading
did you have a medical emergency
what happened ????
Can you tell me something
can you clarify to all of us
the public trading contest where you lost 20 something percent
why did you do it, did you suddenly decide not to demonstrate your trading
did you have a medical emergency
what happened ????
- Status