the basic flaws in TA
- Thread starter marketsurfer
- Start date
It does if you are talking with cult members who feel threatened by any doubts about their path to happiness.Quote from marketsurfer:
you are very wrong. i am not dismissing any well considered argument, since when does questioning equate dismissal?
surfer
They are all sure TA works: the fact that if it did they would all be multi-billionaries within a year (even if it just gave a small but genuine edge), and yet that they are not does not give them pause...
Quote from Cheese:
Analogies with physical laws or human behavior, while no doubt a self satisfying debate, are to do with the 'why' of price behavior and are either not relevant or not relevant in producing practical questions and useable answers.
Although I recognize that many people might be trying to find an answer for " why ", I personally look only for " when ".
Quote from Spxdes:
1/ What makes more people buy rather than sell at a given time or vice versa? Thats for traders to determine. Physics has no part in it....
2/ actually, I take that back....You could say that the stock price will remain in motion, say, going up until an opposite force comes in. The seller. Or maybe just a lack of demand, so the price falls (call it gravity)
-spxdes
1/100% agree with you on this one. I can care less what makes them buy or sell. Physics absolutely has no part in it.
2/You have to forget about gravity or sellers or opposing forces. Look ONLY on resulting chart and then apply properly the proper
method. I have discovered that by using laws of physics I can find ahead of time WHEN is the best time to trade.
Gann said he used law of vibration and that it´s the same law that make radio possible.
What did he mean by the sentence "Tunnel through the air"? Linked to astro?
Ganns methods do work. No idea about astro though but i guess it does since many say so.
So sure it is physics. How can something not be? Every thought is electrical
What did he mean by the sentence "Tunnel through the air"? Linked to astro?
Ganns methods do work. No idea about astro though but i guess it does since many say so.
So sure it is physics. How can something not be? Every thought is electrical
hi darkhorse,
just when it starts getting fun, you leave...... :eek:
you are not asking the correct questions--- the correct questions would be: (among many others)
1. how many funds of the top trend followers failed? as you know, ALL of the top claimed trend followers are operating multiple funds across a universe of instruments and perhaps methods. the failed funds ( ask their investors ) are swept under the carpet and the winners hailed/promoted to no end. one needs to consider ALL the funds ever started by the top 10 or whatever trend managers, not just the winners.
2. how many market players are/were there? i venture to guess that you dont know. the public are trend followers by default--uisng the commonly accepted definition of trend following as buying new highs/selling new lows--if this method works, why are there so few traders that rise to the top.
i was surprised to see the personal attacks on my abilities. i am well versed in mathematics, and have world class contacts/ associates to consult should i get stumped on an issue. you really seem to be narrow casting in this regard--very unlike the darkhorse of yore.
best,
surfer
Surfer,
Ok, since you are well versed in mathematics, do you really believe that you can uncover a pattern to market behavior using correlation analysis? You have referred to this over and over again in threads, and clearly it seems to be a key part of your beliefs...
Do you really believe that you can dig for gold with a plastic teaspoon?
You are incorrect in using basic statistical analysis (ala Fama, et al) in trying to criticize technical analysis. You speak positively of Andrew Lo, yet mention nothing of his findings and their relevance to this debate. Which shows me that you are intellectually dishonest individual with an obvious axe to grind.
The fact that many on this board cannot make money with TA is not proof that it cannot be helpful or effective. That is embarrassingly weak logic. The best tools only 'work' in the hands of those who are true masters, and true masters are a minority by definition. If I put a stradivarius in your hands, would you be able to play Paganini's Caprice 24? I highly doubt it, so don't claim then the stradivarius is useless. You are the useless one in that process.
God give me strength...
These points were specifically addressed! On this very thread! Specifically addressed! Need I say it again, Specifically addressed! Once more, Specifically addressed!
In point (1) your first statement re multiple funds (or rather methods) is baldly false and has no real evidence to back it up. If anything there is much evidence to the contrary -- you seem to be pulling assertions out of thin air now. As to all the funds etc etc, we already went over the basic math. The odds of 5 million plus technically oriented trend-following funds in business circa 1985 --- necessary to produce ten 20 year veterans by coinflip -- are not just astronomically small, they are ZERO. ZERO. I don't care if you gave every single legitimate mutual fund manager and hedge fund manager in existence a DOZEN funds to run -- and this still applies today -- the total number would still not come anywhere close to what is required.
In fact, what is the total sum of legitimate mutual funds and hedge funds in existence today? Hint: it is well under 50,000, which is less than ONE PERCENT of 5.24 million. Remember the 5 million plus number? Remember? Even if nine out of ten funds fail and completely disappear, you would still get a starting base that is TEN TIMES too small from a probability standpoint -- and that is TODAY, let alone 1985! HOW can you claim mathematical justification for 20 years of randomness in the face of these numbers? HOW? HOW? HOW? HOW? HOW?
Re point 2, I refer you again, with deep weariness, to the simple probability analysis of the starting base required to randomly produce ten $100 million plus trend followers with twenty-year track records. We went over the basic math! With a fine tooth comb. We don't have to 'know' the size of the base if we can determine that the theoretically required size of the base is impossibly large to produce current results by coinflip means. Is... this... not... obvious.
Re 'public' class of trend followers, it has already been established that there is a specific methodology and class of trading known as 'trend following,' with recognizable players, recognizable action patterns, and recognizable thinking patterns, that is wholly distinct from the more generic meaning of the term as applied to Joe Blow.
Defining trend following as 'buy low / sell high' -- and trying to claim that the public at large are all trend followers -- is about as useless as a word that defines all other words in the dictionary. This too was addressed. I don't see how you can make a such a claim -- that professional grade trend following is nothing more than retail level platitudes -- while still maintaining a straight face. (I suppose participants in the Indy 500 are just weekenders tooling around in their Camaros.)
I am angry at myself for getting lured back into this mire once again. I do so mainly to ask a question of the other readers of this thread. If you have read or appreciated any of my posts in the past, PLEASE do me the favor of answering this question for me.
The question is, AM I CRAZY? Did we not already address the above points, and address them fairly thoroughly? Just a simple yes or no will do. Someone, anyone, tell me this isn't a twilight zone episode.
Hey wait, I know. I'm getting punk'd. Is that it? Candid camera or something?
I hate to say it surf, but I can't even describe where you seem to have gone. It is as if you are responding to my replies without comprehending them at all -- or else you are intentionally pretending not to understand, which is worse. Have you ever seen 'The Office'? You are giving Gareth Keenan a run for his money. For my own sweet sake, and to keep me from further temptation of banging my head on the desk, I am now putting you on 'ignore.'
Please trust me when I tell you that I feel your pain.
darkhorse,
i see you are not understanding my point in the least
but, hey, thats ok. i know we agree on several truly important issues.
all my best,
surfer
i see you are not understanding my point in the least
but, hey, thats ok. i know we agree on several truly important issues.
all my best,
surfer