Technical Analysis Doesn't Work

Status
Not open for further replies.
"People who see technical analysis as a means of generating mechanical buy and sell signals usually lose money consistenty. Those of us who see it as a tool to analyze price action to form OUR own opinions as to whether to buy or sell have more success since it is still left to the trader to decide."


TA is just one of many tools to help clear a personal Decision to buy or sell.

The true test is if you are able to admit that ur wrong and get out of a lossing trade, before it hurts.

I know ZERO traders that I have traded with, including myself, that use TA by itself.

E
 
Quote from 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...
More...

Here comes the old rcanfiel rearing his head . . .

I agree, you are the "post starter" so if you say that pure price action isn't TA we must follow that line of reasoning. Far be it from any of us to argue with your vast experience.

Sorry, but Statistics and Logic are two separate fields. Statistics isn't logical and Logic isn't statistically grounded. Professor
Warren Goldfarb, Professor of Modern Mathematics and Mathematical Logic at Harvard is probably just a smidgen more knowledgeable than you on the field. Why not email him and ask him to clarify it for you. I presume you want to have the facts for a change. His email address is: goldfarb@fas.harvard.edu .
 
Quote from marketsurfer:

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

regards,

surf
More...

Here is the Bond Market. The automated results here are one of the least percentage wise but pay attention to the drawdown. This particular one has been running since December. I average about 78% for automation in all markets. The percentage increases when using it manually because I use any confirmation factor I haven't yet added to te automated process.

But then TA doesn't work.
 

Attachments

Quote from ProfLogic:

Here comes the old rcanfiel rearing his head . . .

I agree, you are the "post starter" so if you say that pure price action isn't TA we must follow that line of reasoning. Far be it from any of us to argue with your vast experience.

Sorry, but Statistics and Logic are two separate fields. Statistics isn't logical and Logic isn't statistically grounded. Professor
Warren Goldfarb, Professor of Modern Mathematics and Mathematical Logic at Harvard is probably just a smidgen more knowledgeable than you on the field. Why not email him and ask him to clarify it for you. I presume you want to have the facts for a change. His email address is: goldfarb@fas.harvard.edu .
More...

Since you ignored what I said twice, I will return the favor.
 
I think it is safe to say that rcanfiel and marketsurfer are fairly set in their opinion regarding the uselessness of TA. Their many and repetitive posts leave little room for doubt.

Although I personally employ TA in its most rudimentary form (no indicators or fancy chart patterns), I also think that much of what passes for TA has more to do with marketing that it has to do with the markets themselves. Agreed, looking at the past and present may not allow us to predict the future, but outside of being prescient or having inside information, it is often the best that most of us have. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." I think that if Churchill had been a trader, he might have said something similar about TA. (Well, maybe I'm stretching a little. :) )

And so, a question comes to mind. If rcanfiel and marketsurfer are so vehemently opposed to TA, then what methods do they employ that produce better results for them? Please advise.
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

I think it is safe to say that rcanfiel and marketsurfer are fairly set in their opinion regarding the uselessness of TA. Their many and repetitive posts leave little room for doubt.

Although I personally employ TA in its most rudimentary form (no indicators or fancy chart patterns), I also think that much of what passes for TA has more to do with marketing that it has to do with the markets themselves. Agreed, looking at the past and present may not allow us to predict the future, but outside of being prescient or having inside information, it is often the best that most of us have. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." I think that if Churchill had been a trader, he might have said something similar about TA. (Well, maybe I'm stretching a little. :) )

And so, a question comes to mind. If rcanfiel and marketsurfer are so vehemently opposed to TA, then what methods do they employ that produce better results for them? Please advise.
More...


allow me to correct the factual errors in TD's post. i'm open to anything and everything in order to gain an edge trading. my mind is not closed to TA, its just that when tested properly, TA fails. this isn't my opinion, this is fact.

TA is appealing to people since it looks easy, and provides a nice map of the past. unfortunately, the map is not the territory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski

the market exists to take the most amount of money from the greatest number of people--- TA is the de riguer method of trading for the public, since the popularization of the PC. TA use to be much more difficult requiring hand charting,etc. now its easy and much of it is FREE--- what could be more seductive??

Trade what you think, not what you see.

regards,

surf

ps. as a side example-- think of all the excellent charting packages provided for free by forex dealers--GFT comes to mind, their deal book is quite good for a free platform---- remember,most forex dealers take the other side of your trades-- would they be providing all these TA tools for free so you would be able to beat them??? or rather, providing the tools since you will have the Illusion of an edge, but still be losing? It keeps one in the game longer, hence losing more money....

TA has the function of creating illusion in order to keep people banging away losing money--why else would the "market infrastructure" be so supportive of it??
 
marketsurfer,

You "artfully" deflected the question. How do you trade if you do not employ any elements of TA? I'm not looking for specifics. Broad brush will do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top