I do not think that vanishing from internet forums is random. Careful observation can identify patterns that enable one to predict, for example, that marketsurfer is not going anywhere, but is in fact here to stay.
Technical analysis
- Thread starter Josh Stefaniak
- Start date
I do not think that vanishing from internet forums is random. Careful observation can identify patterns that enable one to predict, for example, that marketsurfer is not going anywhere, but is in fact here to stay.
I hope you're right! He's one of the few who makes clear, before-the-fact calls.
You make a lot of words but actually turn in circles:
1) yes re Romik we will need to agree to disagree. Others can see for themselves.
2) I do no recall ever having said my methods are better. Please point me to it and maybe I can clarify where you must likely take me out of context. I never volunteered my own approach to trading hence have no obligation, factual nor moral, to walk anyone through it.
3) I simply hold those accountable who try to give the impression away that by repeating to say "TA works" a million times it makes it turn into a fact. A lot of evidence and facts actually speak against the possibility TA consistently works. Dirt poor TA analysts or even certified TAs (whatever it means) have to turn to being book authors and course sellers to feed their families. You seriously think that self proclaimed quant guy Chan is successful? Heck no, else he would never write books and waste all his time flying around numerous blogs.
4) I am fed up with some of the TA clowns who make bold statements but cannot back up any of their claims. The same happened in the professional Quant finance forum of StackExchange. Over the last year tons of retarded TA apostles trolled and spammed he forum and they were luckily alost all booted off the forum. They seem to have found a new home here: All good with me but when someone makes loud mouthed claims they need to accept others challenge them on such claims. I can deal with being challenged on claims I make , my trading methods are not under discussion as I never made any claims about them.
1) yes re Romik we will need to agree to disagree. Others can see for themselves.
2) I do no recall ever having said my methods are better. Please point me to it and maybe I can clarify where you must likely take me out of context. I never volunteered my own approach to trading hence have no obligation, factual nor moral, to walk anyone through it.
3) I simply hold those accountable who try to give the impression away that by repeating to say "TA works" a million times it makes it turn into a fact. A lot of evidence and facts actually speak against the possibility TA consistently works. Dirt poor TA analysts or even certified TAs (whatever it means) have to turn to being book authors and course sellers to feed their families. You seriously think that self proclaimed quant guy Chan is successful? Heck no, else he would never write books and waste all his time flying around numerous blogs.
4) I am fed up with some of the TA clowns who make bold statements but cannot back up any of their claims. The same happened in the professional Quant finance forum of StackExchange. Over the last year tons of retarded TA apostles trolled and spammed he forum and they were luckily alost all booted off the forum. They seem to have found a new home here: All good with me but when someone makes loud mouthed claims they need to accept others challenge them on such claims. I can deal with being challenged on claims I make , my trading methods are not under discussion as I never made any claims about them.
Last edited:
The original chart posted showed fast and slow stochastics in extremely overbought territory. Yet the price action pattern displayed in the 7 bars leading up to the right edge offered favorable odds to further upside. This is why I switched to price action instead of indicators. Price action is a more reliable method for me because the behavior of price itself signals when to trade and in which direction to trade regardless of what indicators seem to be saying.
Yes, it will either break to the upside or downside. Regardless you will of course credit TA for that fact. Lol.
Well that and the fact that indicators suck.
Yes I would. And you would most likely laugh at it as you have in the past, repetition of your emotional state at same event confirms that price reaction at historic levels also isn't a totally random effect, after all prices are driven by humans and not terminators, like you.
Since you weren't satisfied with my earlier reply I'm taking another look at this.
One green candle is enough to increase the odds the next candle will be green. Yes it's a heads trend.
of course I laugh about it (you?) in this specific context. Especially after you removed your funny comments from your post. Let me try to paraphrase what you said "the level depicted on the chart is very important from a technical analysis perspective because the market may move up or down from this level". Another hilarious one of yours...