Technical Analysis Doesn't Work

[ljyoung]

(1) When a poster speaks of price action would it be possible for said poster to define what they mean? Are they talking about numbers, pictures (charts) or both numbers and pictures? Similarly, are they talking about tics or the complete assemblage of raw market data. I would suggest that the distinctions are rather important.

(2) Another small point, if you will. So far as I know the "evidence-based" moniker really got rolling about 15 or so years ago when it was introduced as a way to sift through the mounds of crap that fill the allopathic medical sphere. The Cochrane Collaboration was the prime mover and it has done well by itself. Criticisms of the methodology used by this group are of two main types: bean-counter bias and bean-counter ignorance. As pointed out by other posters, these shortcomings [generally not widely acknowledged by certain practitioners of certain aspects of the fine art of statistics] are not without consequence. These things being so, I reflexively cringe and whine when I hear that wretched term.

The summary view of these two bits [(1) and (2)]of mindless gibberish is this: If your data is suspect then your conclusions are meaningless. Unless you have some way of knowing that the data which you receive on your desktop (or wherever)accurately reflects what is going on in the market, you can't know what works or doesn't work. Period.

lj

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from ProfLogic:

This can't be rcanfiel writing this. The same guy that degrades his post to name calling and ridiculing those of us that use 95% pure price action in our methods. He must have found religion.

1) It was feb2865 who made that post, not rcanfiel. I don't know your point, and you switched in my user ID.

2) I use minimal name calling, but receive much more back. Tey reading a few negative posts and you will see this in spades.

3) I never ridiculed those using 95% pure price action, as you will see, since I factored out pure price action in the OP. Further, I said it appears to be the method of more successful traders. From the first post:

The consideration of Price action, free of all indicators or other philosophies mentioned above, is not included in the definition for purposes of this thread. This seems to be one of the few ways that many successful traders use that actually works.

Try reading my posts again, but with your glasses on.

 

[ProfLogic]

Quote from rcanfiel:

1) It was feb2865 who made that post, not rcanfiel. I don't know your point, and you switched in my user ID.

2) I use minimal name calling, but receive much more back. Tey reading a few negative posts and you will see this in spades.

3) I never ridiculed those using 95% pure price action, as you will see, since I factored out pure price action in the OP. Further, I said it appears to be the method of more successful traders. From the first post:

The consideration of Price action, free of all indicators or other philosophies mentioned above, is not included in the definition for purposes of this thread. This seems to be one of the few ways that many successful traders use that actually works.

Try reading my posts again, but with your glasses on.

In the hopes of keeping the intelligent communication rolling I won't press the point and I have read this thread in its entirety with perfect comprehension.

To make a point though, reading pure Price Action from non-varying chart environments "IS" technical analysis and in its untainted form. Something that's consistent as well.

That being said, your title from this thread would be more accurate if it stated, "Most Technical Analysis Doesn't Work".

 

[Landis82]

Quote from rcanfiel:

The interview was the first one on top of a google search, and came up per YOUR strong suggestion. The man gives a lengthy core dump of his philosophy and what he uses to trade, and Elliot is nowhere to be found. But numerous other things are. Thus it is easy to conclude that at best, EQ is a fraction.

And why did you ignore the interview as I sent it to you? This isn't pinochle. You don't trump an interview with another. Given the one I sent was much later than your MW interview, it is quite likely that PTJ realized it was relative useless with EQ, and factored it out or greatly diminished it in his trading. But a nonmention does not bode well for your claim of the centrality of EW to PTJ.

There is no ego on this end. But if you again read your posts, yours comes shining through.

Oh . . . so now you are finally acknowledging that the use of Elliott Wave by PTJ was documented in "Market Wizards" by Jack Schwager's interview of Paul Jones?

It certainly took you long enough to ADMIT this.
(6 days to be exact).

What's wrong?
Did your EGO get in the way?

And to top it off, you now put words into PTJ's mouth ( and interview ) by assuming that "he realized that Elliott Wave Theory was relatively useless" and chose not to mention it in a more recent interview?

Where is your substantiation of this?
Where is the evidence that supports this latter, highly speculative and assumptive claim by you?

Congratulations!
You are indeed a Hypocrite.

 

[joepepper2001]

they sure worked well on amln today

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from ProfLogic:

I have read this thread in its entirety with perfect comprehension.

Then why did you get everything wrong in your last post? And are glossing over your numerous errors? Try reading the last post again.

To make a point though, reading pure Price Action from non-varying chart environments "IS" technical analysis and in its untainted form. Something that's consistent as well.

The starter of a thread is allowed to define the content. This point has been long argued here on ET. There is a continuing tension between pure price action and those who use indicators. But I will repeat again from my last post you just quoted: <i>The consideration of Price action, free of all indicators or other philosophies mentioned above, is not included in the definition for purposes of this thread. This seems to be one of the few ways that many successful traders use that actually works.</i>

That being said, your title from this thread would be more accurate if it stated, "Most Technical Analysis Doesn't Work".

That has some merit, but would have more if there was much statistical evidence in its favor. Somehow, no one ever seems to be able to find anything other than anecdotes. Do you wonder why that is? In most fields of Logic, that is called "damning." Try running that through your EX-NOR gate...

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from ProfLogic:

In the hopes of keeping the intelligent communication rolling I won't press the point and I have read this thread in its entirety with perfect comprehension.

To make a point though, reading pure Price Action from non-varying chart environments "IS" technical analysis and in its untainted form. Something that's consistent as well.

That being said, your title from this thread would be more accurate if it stated, "Most Technical Analysis Doesn't Work".

what is the accuracy rate of this "working" method?

regards,

surf

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from Landis82:

Oh . . . so now you are finally acknowledging that the use of Elliott Wave by PTJ was documented in "Market Wizards" by Jack Schwager's interview of Paul Jones? It certainly took you long enough to ADMIT this. (6 days to be exact). What's wrong? Did your EGO get in the way?

No, I never said this. You are hearing voices.

And to top it off, you now put words into PTJ's mouth ( and interview ) by assuming that "he realized that Elliott Wave Theory was relatively useless" and chose not to mention it in a more recent interview? Where is your substantiation of this? Where is the evidence that supports this latter, highly speculative and assumptive claim by you?

You said PTJ was a prime example of the effectiveness of Elliott Wave. In 2000, PJT gives a lengthy interview about his lifetime philosophies and trading techniques in great detail. He never mentions EW.

Q.E.D. 2+2=4, Landis.

 

[marketsurfer]

PTJ also turned charts upside down, and correlated 1929--1987---his chief TA guy--peter borish---has gone on to found First Chicago, among other ventures.

surf

 

[atticus]

Quote from marketsurfer:

PTJ also turned charts upside down, and correlated 1929--1987---his chief TA guy--peter borish---has gone on to found First Chicago, among other ventures.

surf

lol, OneChicago.