Technical analysis :useless junk science
- Thread starter oilfxpro
- Start date
Quote from Xspurt:
Still waiting
Garbage in, garbage out (abbreviated to GIGO, possibly intended to parallel the phrase first-in, first-out) is a phrase in the field of computer science or information and communication technology. It is used primarily to call attention to the fact that computers will unquestioningly process the most nonsensical of input data ("garbage in") and produce nonsensical output ("garbage out"). It was most popular in the early days of computing, but applies even more today, when powerful computers can spew out mountains of erroneous information in a short time. The first use of the term has been dated to a 1 April 1963 syndicated newspaper article about the first stages of computerization of the US Internal Revenue Service.[1] The term was brought to prominence as a teaching mantra by George Fuechsel,[2] an IBM 305 RAMAC technician/instructor in New York. Early programmers were required to test virtually each program step and cautioned not to expect that the resulting program would "do the right thing" when given imperfect input. The underlying principle was noted by the inventor of the first programmable computing device design:
On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
âCharles Babbage, Passages from the Life of a Philosopher[3]
It is also commonly used to describe failures in human decision-making due to faulty, incomplete, or imprecise data.
"It was testing just testing for net pips profitability , standard mm , 44 different signals."
So....you ALSO use TA....thanks for clarifying
Yes, glad he has cleared that up and now he's about to show me how exactly he back tested the falling knife set up to show how ignorant a whore gambler I am.
Seems he does what he says he doesn't... and doesn't do what he says he does.
What's up Oily, you're keeping us all waiting. Time to put up or shut up!
Trends don't even exist in the stock market. They can't be measured, they can't be quantifiably defined-- therefore the feeble attempt at measuring such by visual inspection of charts known as technical analysis is complete nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_trend
Yes, of course they can be measured. The problem is being able to trade them successfully by getting long or short while the trend is in affect. Many people still think the world is flat, even though we can now measure the circumference of the world. Just as many people don't believe in evolution and don't want it taught in schools. There is no arguing with a fanatic.
One trader taught me the way to calculate the longer term trend without using a longer term chart so that I can just use 1 chart all day and always know when the market is trending or not.
Yes, of course they can be measured. The problem is being able to trade them successfully by getting long or short while the trend is in affect. Many people still think the world is flat, even though we can now measure the circumference of the world. Just as many people don't believe in evolution and don't want it taught in schools. There is no arguing with a fanatic.
One trader taught me the way to calculate the longer term trend without using a longer term chart so that I can just use 1 chart all day and always know when the market is trending or not.
Sorry, Wikipedia just doesn't get it. I prefer to Rely on data rather than accolades when dealing with the market:
To join a proper debate, such measures must be quantified for various markets and various times, and the degree of uncertainty and departure from randomness must be ascertained. I have never found a movement in prices that anyone could make money with by a trend following method that didn�t also show a major departure from randomness revealed by the standard statistical measures I mentioned. The tragedy is the mysticism and blind acceptance of trendism, that trend following exponents proclaim, without any evidence as to magnitude and uncertainty. No self-reported results that selected individuals or leaders might have made in the past shed light on the debate.
Dave: Your well known saying, it iit can be tested, it must be tested� comes into play here . Exactly what testing have you done to prove the above idea?
Victor: These tests can readily be performed My group of colleagues performs these tests maybe 2-3 thousand times a year over different markets and time frames. Those of a cognitive bent and those with their feet on the ground are always open to the existence of trends, but they test them with the best statistical methods existing. If you apply these tests to stock market moves, you will find that all such tests show negative serial correlation. In fact, they indicate a tendency for reversal.
Dave: What about the upward bias in stock prices? Why can�t that be interpreted as a trend?
Victor: Well, all proper statistical tests take into account this upward drift. They would look for serial correlations over and above the basic drift of the market. One of the other market cons is the permanent bearishness of some of market pundits, and I am the last person to say that this upward drift, evidenced over the last 200 years, does not exist. This in no way refutes, but it does refine the statistical tests required for the stock market. However, I hasten to add that no such upward drift exists in any other market.