You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Technical analysis :useless junk science
- Thread starter oilfxpro
- Start date
Where you guys read about technical analysis? I'm kinda confused here been reading a lot in sites like this: http://www.forexlessons.org/technical-analysis/ , but I still think it is just basics, can you send my way some other sourced that have proven to be in use, I'm sick of wasting time to lurk around and end up with same info showed on to me everytime
Unfortunately, the process basically involves reading a lot of stuff, taking out what you like, and discarding the rest. Ultimately, you just need to come up with something that works for you, but you have to develop a base of knowledge first.
What works depends of several factors, I give a very, very, very, very limited list:
The markets:
The system:
The person:
For each of this (limited) combinations you can have a different result. On top of that there are much more factors that influence performance. So it is impossible for 1 person or even for 100 persons together to conclude what works and what doesn't. To be able to judge correctly you should be able to analyze ALL possible combinations. Which is not realistic because nobody can analyze ALL possible combinations. One simple reason is that the person himself is a decisive factor in this analysis. A stupid person cannot check how a smart person would trade, an emotional person cannot check how a very cool and self- controlled person will trade. And even if it would be possible, there are thousands of other combinations that should be checked, because if only ONE combination would work it would proof that the statement "it works" is correct. Which superhuman on this forum can achieve this? Don't forget that you should be a superhuman; thinking you are superhuman (like some posters here) is not enough.
some examples , but I keep them short and simple to not complicate matters and to make it easier to analyze:
· Building a house:
1. I would like to build a house so I have a perfect plot of land, the best materials and I am very handy. In no time I will build a beautiful house on a beautiful location. Conclusion: it works perfectly.
2. I would like to build a house so I have a perfect plot of land, the best materials and I am not handy at all. I manage to build a house, although the house is horrible and not comfortable to live in. Conclusion: it does not work at all.
3. I would like to build a house so I have a perfect plot of land, bad materials and I am not handy at all. I don't manage to build a house at all. Conclusion: it does not work at all.
· Meeting someone at the other side of the world:
1. I would like to meet a friend who lives at the other side of the world. I live in the bushes in Africa. I cannot met him because it would take months to walk to him.
2. I would like to meet a friend who lives at the other side of the world. I live in the bushes in Africa. I know there is an airfield close to where I live so I take a plane and will visit him.
3. I would like to meet a friend who lives at the other side of the world. I live in the bushes in Africa. I have Skype and meet him on Skype, don't even have to leave my (tree)house.
Conclusion: depending on the different factors the outcome and also the conclusion is different. Always remember all the limitations that will always exist and that will have a huge impact on your conclusions. And most important factor that blocks an all included analysis is the fact that not ONE single human being is able to analyze all possible combinations to be analyzed. But on ET many people however are convinced they are more smart then all the others. The only thing people who are "more than average smart" know is that they are not smart at all and surely don't know enough to make an acceptable conclusion.
You need only ONE person to proof something works. If this person would exist it would still be possible that he is not aware about his abilities and will maybe discover them only in a few months or years. Are you sure that you can say this person does not exist? If you say YES you proof yourself that you are not able to make an objective and correct judgment.
1. the limitations of the markets
2. the limitations of the "system" that is used
3. the limitations of the person who is trading
2. the limitations of the "system" that is used
3. the limitations of the person who is trading
The markets:
1. they can be difficult to trade
2. they can be easy to trade
3. they can be "average" to trade
2. they can be easy to trade
3. they can be "average" to trade
The system:
- can work in all markets
1. can work very well
2. can work average
3. can work not
2. can work average
3. can work not
- can work in some markets
1. can work very well
2. can work average
3. can work not
2. can work average
3. can work not
- can work in no markets, so not work at all
1. can work very well
2. can work average
3. can work not
2. can work average
3. can work not
The person:
1. can be very able to trade
2. can be average able to trade
3. can be not at all able to trade
2. can be average able to trade
3. can be not at all able to trade
For each of this (limited) combinations you can have a different result. On top of that there are much more factors that influence performance. So it is impossible for 1 person or even for 100 persons together to conclude what works and what doesn't. To be able to judge correctly you should be able to analyze ALL possible combinations. Which is not realistic because nobody can analyze ALL possible combinations. One simple reason is that the person himself is a decisive factor in this analysis. A stupid person cannot check how a smart person would trade, an emotional person cannot check how a very cool and self- controlled person will trade. And even if it would be possible, there are thousands of other combinations that should be checked, because if only ONE combination would work it would proof that the statement "it works" is correct. Which superhuman on this forum can achieve this? Don't forget that you should be a superhuman; thinking you are superhuman (like some posters here) is not enough.
some examples , but I keep them short and simple to not complicate matters and to make it easier to analyze:
· Building a house:
1. I would like to build a house so I have a perfect plot of land, the best materials and I am very handy. In no time I will build a beautiful house on a beautiful location. Conclusion: it works perfectly.
2. I would like to build a house so I have a perfect plot of land, the best materials and I am not handy at all. I manage to build a house, although the house is horrible and not comfortable to live in. Conclusion: it does not work at all.
3. I would like to build a house so I have a perfect plot of land, bad materials and I am not handy at all. I don't manage to build a house at all. Conclusion: it does not work at all.
· Meeting someone at the other side of the world:
1. I would like to meet a friend who lives at the other side of the world. I live in the bushes in Africa. I cannot met him because it would take months to walk to him.
2. I would like to meet a friend who lives at the other side of the world. I live in the bushes in Africa. I know there is an airfield close to where I live so I take a plane and will visit him.
3. I would like to meet a friend who lives at the other side of the world. I live in the bushes in Africa. I have Skype and meet him on Skype, don't even have to leave my (tree)house.
Conclusion: depending on the different factors the outcome and also the conclusion is different. Always remember all the limitations that will always exist and that will have a huge impact on your conclusions. And most important factor that blocks an all included analysis is the fact that not ONE single human being is able to analyze all possible combinations to be analyzed. But on ET many people however are convinced they are more smart then all the others. The only thing people who are "more than average smart" know is that they are not smart at all and surely don't know enough to make an acceptable conclusion.
You need only ONE person to proof something works. If this person would exist it would still be possible that he is not aware about his abilities and will maybe discover them only in a few months or years. Are you sure that you can say this person does not exist? If you say YES you proof yourself that you are not able to make an objective and correct judgment.
Last edited:
200 years ago nobody believed:
I can make this list endless. But now nobody can deny we have all these "impossible" things.
"CANNOT" is timebound and temporary. What cannot now, can maybe in a short time, and what can now maybe cannot anymore in a short time.
- we would fly to the moon
- we would put another heart in people
- we would have computers
- we would drive cars
- we would fly
I can make this list endless. But now nobody can deny we have all these "impossible" things.
"CANNOT" is timebound and temporary. What cannot now, can maybe in a short time, and what can now maybe cannot anymore in a short time.
What works depends of several factors, I give a very, very, very, very limited list:
1. the limitations of the markets
2. the limitations of the "system" that is used
3. the limitations of the person who is trading
The markets:
1. they can be difficult to trade
2. they can be easy to trade
3. they can be "average" to trade
The system:
- can work in all markets
1. can work very well
2. can work average
3. can work not
- can work in some markets
1. can work very well
2. can work average
3. can work not
- can work in no markets, so not work at all
1. can work very well
2. can work average
3. can work not
The person:
1. can be very able to trade
2. can be average able to trade
3. can be not at all able to trade
For each of this (limited) combinations you can have a different result. On top of that there are much more factors that influence performance. So it is impossible for 1 person or even for 100 persons together to conclude what works and what doesn't. To be able to judge correctly you should be able to analyze ALL possible combinations. Which is not realistic because nobody can analyze ALL possible combinations. One simple reason is that the person himself is a decisive factor in this analysis. A stupid person cannot check how a smart person would trade, an emotional person cannot check how a very cool and self- controlled person will trade. And even if it would be possible, there are thousands of other combinations that should be checked, because if only ONE combination would work it would proof that the statement "it works" is correct. Which superhuman on this forum can achieve this? Don't forget that you should be a superhuman; thinking you are superhuman (like some posters here) is not enough.
some examples , but I keep them short and simple to not complicate matters and to make it easier to analyze:
· Building a house:
1. I would like to build a house so I have a perfect plot of land, the best materials and I am very handy. In no time I will build a beautiful house on a beautiful location. Conclusion: it works perfectly.
2. I would like to build a house so I have a perfect plot of land, the best materials and I am not handy at all. I manage to build a house, although the house is horrible and not comfortable to live in. Conclusion: it does not work at all.
3. I would like to build a house so I have a perfect plot of land, bad materials and I am not handy at all. I don't manage to build a house at all. Conclusion: it does not work at all.
· Meeting someone at the other side of the world:
1. I would like to meet a friend who lives at the other side of the world. I live in the bushes in Africa. I cannot met him because it would take months to walk to him.
2. I would like to meet a friend who lives at the other side of the world. I live in the bushes in Africa. I know there is an airfield close to where I live so I take a plane and will visit him.
3. I would like to meet a friend who lives at the other side of the world. I live in the bushes in Africa. I have Skype and meet him on Skype, don't even have to leave my (tree)house.
Conclusion: depending on the different factors the outcome and also the conclusion is different. Always remember all the limitations that will always exist and that will have a huge impact on your conclusions. And most important factor that blocks an all included analysis is the fact that not ONE single human being is able to analyze all possible combinations to be analyzed. But on ET many people however are convinced they are more smart then all the others. The only thing people who are "more than average smart" know is that they are not smart at all and surely don't know enough to make an acceptable conclusion.
You need only ONE person to proof something works. If this person would exist it would still be possible that he is not aware about his abilities and will maybe discover them only in a few months or years. Are you sure that you can say this person does not exist? If you say YES you proof yourself that you are not able to make an objective and correct judgment.
At first read I liked this post a lot. Upon rereading it I found the 3rd subset under The System to be true but not where you extend the following statement into 3 additional subsets.
can work in no markets, so not work at all.
I agree with that, and after struggling with the subsets I find value in subdividing it too. So my initial thought that it did not make sense to subdivide was incorrect. It's not entirely clear what you mean by a system that can work in no markets, so not work at all but I interpret or reduce it to mean the case of a system that doesn't work. Thus the cases of a system that doesn't work can include some that appear to work and while simultaneously the mother case that seeds the 3 child cases of a system that doesn't work in any market, can include the 2 additional cases.
It wasn't easy for me to question your logic and I'm relatively certain the case for my logic having multiple errors is quite likely. But at this point correcting them is a waste of my time, but I encourage anyone who feels it's helpful (or not) to give it a try. In the meantime, I've already found something of great value to me, in your post, and thus thank you for getting me to think about the obvious in a new way. Btw, this has practical application for me in real time on going system testing and that's the primary 80 percent basis for acknowledging your post.
If and when something I am testing can't work in any market then it would be nice to know that up front via it never working. The most difficult of it's possible subsets is the one where it appears to work very well. And perhaps that is the part I haven't applied enough time to grasp your intent but I see that sub case having 2 meanings. The one where it 100 percent of the time doesn't work ...doesn't interest me because it's self evident or redundant and doesn't require considering multiple subsets but the one that concerns me is the case where doesn't work means the strategy that can't work in any market appears to work in all markets at all times. That's a strong case even stronger than realistic so it should be clarified by reducing it slightly from *all* to nearly all the data says it's works well.
If we can reduce the use of the *not* stuff or agree to get past the difficulty in discerning exactly where the *not* or negative is applied to what is being proven as *is* then my concern from a TA pov can be reduced to simply the cases where TA that doesn't and can't have value draws me back to reconsider it further because it always appears to have value when studied intently.
Just to clarify that last paragraph, I am not a member of the group that says TA can't work. I am simply considering a subset of all the TA and that subset is the one where some types of TA never work, but appears to work nicely.
Last edited:
200 years ago nobody believed:
- we would fly to the moon
- we would put another heart in people
- we would have computers
- we would drive cars
- we would fly
I can make this list endless. But now nobody can deny we have all these "impossible" things.
"CANNOT" is timebound and temporary. What cannot now, can maybe in a short time, and what can now maybe cannot anymore in a short time.
Since we can't win at casinos, is the solution to wait 200 years then we can win ?
You should always try to find all theoretically possible combinations, even if they look like irrelevant at first sight. If something does not work, theoretically it can work. Sounds not logic but the way you study this statement can confirm it does not work or can proof that it works. Studying is proving if a statement is true or false. So you should always study all combinations.
Something that looks irrelevant can be relevant after extensive thinking. Think out of the box and don't rush. Really study everything very well.
Next step is eliminating what is really irrelevant.
There are reasons why 90% of traders never make money.
Listen to what others say but never take all they say for the one and only truth, because if you do that you will become one of the 90%.
I already eliminated, in past, thoughts because they did not make sense to me. But because I am in an eternal cyclus of learning I already restudied eliminated thoughts from past that with my newly aquired knowledge started to make sense again. As long as you study the value of what you already defined as valuable can change to not valuable or can be confirmed as valuable.
Something that looks irrelevant can be relevant after extensive thinking. Think out of the box and don't rush. Really study everything very well.
Next step is eliminating what is really irrelevant.
There are reasons why 90% of traders never make money.
Listen to what others say but never take all they say for the one and only truth, because if you do that you will become one of the 90%.
I already eliminated, in past, thoughts because they did not make sense to me. But because I am in an eternal cyclus of learning I already restudied eliminated thoughts from past that with my newly aquired knowledge started to make sense again. As long as you study the value of what you already defined as valuable can change to not valuable or can be confirmed as valuable.
I think for you it is unfortunatelly the only option.Since we can't win at casinos, is the solution to wait 200 years then we can win ?
Depends of the level of intelligence of a person, so......
Since we can't win at casinos, is the solution to wait 200 years then we can win ?
If you're sincerely interested in solutions then consider the following.
You can consider and develop an understanding of the differences between gambling and trading ... casino's and markets.
You can consider what value you derive from informing the community of what you know to be true for you, or at least the value of informing the portion of the community that disagrees with what you know.
Then you can change or continue depending on what you perceive to be the solution.
For me personally, there's value in informing you that you have these choices and it appears to me you haven't considered them. If you have considered them and are so set in doing what you do then god speed I hope you succeed in spending your life deploying yourself in the universe in the way that makes the most sense to you. I don't mind, because I've had you on ignore from the beginning. What I would mind is if on one of my rare peaks at your posts I failed to do the right thing and leave you this note informing you of the results you're getting so you will have more data to make better choices because I have hope that within you there's a seed that knows our highest purpose is to continue to improve the choices we're making.
I think for you it is unfortunatelly the only option.
Depends of the level of intelligence of a person, so......
I am extremely intelligent. So intelligent in fact that people have no way of answering my very simple questions. But I am pleased to have the confirmation that I will be winning at the casino in 200 year's time.
It seems to me the core of your solution is the 200 years. I can propose an optimisation. A 135 year solution should work just as well that will have all the benefits of the original solution while only reducing the margin for error by a negligible amount. A 135 year solution is almost 50% more efficient than a 200 year solution.