TA, in itself, is BS. It's the trader using it.
Counting, in itself, is BS. It's the interpretation of the data.
Everything, by itself, is BS without clear objective application.
...
There's really no point in talking about all this. It's a waste of time, debating about things like this. Like dark says, it's a self-fulfilling, masteurbation.
Let's say, we get to a point and find that TA is not BS. So now what... There's nothing productive about knowing why and proving it works. Seriously, knowing "why" it works has nothing to do with the application of TA.
We are already given the TA to start off with. So how does the "why" help? Is it possible to develop a holy grail from that?
Any thoughts?
PS. Please don't confuse with "how". For example: A lot of people know "how" a computer works. But the question is "why" a computer works.
Counting, in itself, is BS. It's the interpretation of the data.
Everything, by itself, is BS without clear objective application.
...
There's really no point in talking about all this. It's a waste of time, debating about things like this. Like dark says, it's a self-fulfilling, masteurbation.
Let's say, we get to a point and find that TA is not BS. So now what... There's nothing productive about knowing why and proving it works. Seriously, knowing "why" it works has nothing to do with the application of TA.
We are already given the TA to start off with. So how does the "why" help? Is it possible to develop a holy grail from that?
Any thoughts?
PS. Please don't confuse with "how". For example: A lot of people know "how" a computer works. But the question is "why" a computer works.