I do believe that you refer to anecdotal evidence, the nature of which you previously have dismissed out of hand. (Further, I believe riskarb called you out on a trade some time ago which you supposedly did but which you could not have done at the price you reported. Remember? Hardly the kind of "evidence" we're looking for here among us "scientists," eh?)
Technical Analysis Doesn't Work
- Thread starter rcanfiel
- Start date
- Status
you are seeking evidence that "informational arbitrage', "opening order type strategies--bright bros", "stat arb in some markets sometimes", and "tape reading" produce an edge?? just want to make sure we are on the same page and this isn't some kind of trick by the master writer...
these were simple examples of what has produced true edges in the past and may still be be working, i have no idea. im not a true believer in any of them, and if evidenced is provided, it does nothing to help the TA case, so i fail to see the point.surf
yeah, typos suck when some lay in wait to pounce on any error.
yes, its anecdotal, however generally posted before the fact unlike others.
surf
In discussing the validity of TA, you cited the requirement for scientific data to support any claims of validity rather than merely pointing to anecdotal evidence. But this is exactly what you are doing now, presenting anecdotal evidence to support your own claims. All I am suggesting is that we level this playing field. Kindly provide the same sort of evidence you require of others in support of their claims, to validate the type of trading that you believe "works." Nothing more, nothing less. Surely you believe something works, otherwise you would not be trading. So, let's have it.Quote from marketsurfer:
you are seeking evidence that "informational arbitrage', "opening order type strategies--bright bros", "stat arb in some markets sometimes", and "tape reading" produce an edge?? just want to make sure we are on the same page and this isn't some kind of trick by the master writer...
surf
Glad we agree. Onward and upward then.
the word wizard continues his altering of the subject and placing the burden on the TA heretic instead of where it belongs--on the true believers.
i make no claims and am not a true believer in any trading method, being fully aware of the markets ever changing nature and its goals.
surf
Hard to resist this one: IF Papersurfer trades with a system/ method that is supported by "valid, scientific evidence", then it makes one shiver to think how he would do with system that does not have such benefit ...
After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
It just begs the question: if you do not do well in your trading- Ok....no problem...but then why constantly attack other methods which- as even some cursory research would clarify- do work for some people? Or are you really so deluded that you think that NOBODY makes money trading who looks at price on a chart and uses that to trade from? That would blow my mind. I mean, I personally know some people who do consistently very well from it... after all your years in the market, you have never met one???
You're sidestepping now, surf. You hailed VN as being a trader who employs the scientific method in his trading, and you count him as your friend. Please show us the scientifically valid results to support your prior claims. Remember, not merely anecdotal.
I am altering nothing. I merely wish to level the field on which we assess trading approaches. You are apparently holding TA to a higher standard of evidence than you are holding other forms of trading that you presently seem to favor. That's not a very scientific way of going about things. You are exhibiting a decidedly unscientific bias. But I'll even accept that if you merely present the same standard of evidence for any other form of trading in support of any claim that such other method is better than TA. I'm only asking that you play by the same rules that you are imposing on others. That's not being crafty on my part. I'm merely asking that you be fair.
well, these types of methods don't require the same type proof as TA--- their very nature is the proof--- the nature of TA has no proof inately within it--other than the past, which is useless in trading. arb, for instance, one has sold prior to buying thus locking in profits--- this is one example where there is no need to prove this method--since its nature is proof. informational arb is another that requires no proof and is not testable, rebate trading where one gets paid to trade is another---- i could go on and on. these are different and prove themselves inately unlike observing the past and predicting by making trades via TA where certain patterns are suppose to have predictive qualities, etal. we are talking about totally different things.
surf
Marketsurfer's and rcanfiel's lofty standards regarding scientific evidence have painted them into a corner. By not accepting anecdotal evidence to support the claims of TA "working," they have implicitly set the standard by which they are willing to validate various other types of trading. Now that they have "established" for themselves that TA does not "work" by their standard of evidence, they are rather hard pressed to offer any other form of trading that meets their unyielding criteria, supported by the same standard of evidence. Therefore, by their own standards, they can only conclude that nothing "works" and that they are wasting their time on ET and in the markets. I'm just following their own string of thought to its logical conclusion.
- Status