The best book in Technical Analysis
- Thread starter Optionpro007
- Start date
The TA book I got the most out of, and I admit I didn't read the whole thing (maybe someday), is Perry Kaufman's SMARTER TRADING. His adaptive moving average was a real eye-opener for me: the first indicator I saw that was the result of thinking outside of the box. The idea of letting the data itself determine what's the best way to transform it makes tremendous sense to me.
What I find fascinating is that the KAMA presented in the book is kludged up (maybe deliberately) and relatively few technicians realize it. Maybe too many techs are absurdly waiting for somebody to just hand them a Holy Grail, instead of doing the work themselves.
Yes I definitely think that you have said "most". I'd have to agree with you that 99% is what one would normally consider "most... not all". However, there's not a lot of room between the "nuance" - as you put it - of 99% and the certainty of 100%... at least not to me.Quote from kut2k2:
It can be shown (in fact, has been shown) that 99% of TA is crap. Guess what? 99% of TA books insist in shoving that crap 99% of TA down your throat anyway.
There are a million ways to make money in the market. Some prefer to ramble on ad nauseum and without fail promote themselves as if they and only they know the only way.
But kut'ie, save your tough talk for someone that is impressed by it. I took the time to peruse your contributions to EliteTrader. It is readily apparent that you are still in search of something that works for you. I doubt you've made any real money trading whatsoever. You pick fights on almost every thread you participate in, and yet for someone who considers himself (herself?) a teacher you offer nothing.
Why don't you lay back and take a more positive approach to the contributions and questions from the membership here, instead of acting like you are the end-all of trading? You're not, grob's not, I'm not, no one is. Learn how to play nicely with others around here or hit the road.
Oh yeah, academia is certainly my top trading resource.
And certainly your testing has more validity than Crabel, I'm sure.
In any case, Crabel's opening range breakout stuff was most useful to me in the beginning. You may want to look at that if you're interested in becoming a profitable trader instead of being so defensive, i.e., a losing trader.
Of course, the ultimate goal is to get you to a point where you're recognizing levels on multiple time frames in real-time. I am a big fan of JH's SCT (but with an entirely different set of tools, i.e., no indicators) but have cut back to 5-7 round turns per day; there are still instances where it's unclear to me when to SAR.
If you're trading index futures, I find Gilmore's stuff to be an appetizing start. He says enough smart things that you wish he hadn't written.
I didn't suggest it should be. You have difficulty staying on topic. You said "How do you know that 99% of TA is crap if these books have zero performance data? This is one of those typical hater posts that has no basis in reality." I replied that academia as well as myself separately had tested the main TA strategies. You don't have to be a trader to evaluate a recommended TA strategy and see if it works. It's called backtesting; maybe you've heard of it.Quote from PoundTheRock:
Oh yeah, academia is certainly my top trading resource.
I wouldn't go to most academics (there are exceptions) either for trading advice but they can all tell you that 2 plus 2 does NOT equal 5, which is basically what a lot of TA books are trying to sell.
I wouldn't know, not being familiar with Crabel. He may be hell on wheels; I don't remember giving an opinion on him. Are you always this confused?Quote from PoundTheRock:
And certainly your testing has more validity than Crabel, I'm sure.
Congratulations. Looks like you've maybe found one of the few worthwhile TA books out there. Maybe. I don't recall saying the number of such books was zero.
Again, a posting that is vacuous and longwinded.
Your innumeracy is duly noted. Ask any mathematician, he or she will tell you that the diff between 99% and 100% is infinite.
Sounds like the average TA author to me.
Yes this validates your lack of perception quite nicely.
Let's review your so-called offering:
"TA is really not about testing an indicator. It's about quantifying the behaviour of buyers and sellers. Too many trader-wannabe's cannot get beyond the idea that trading involves hard work and risk. They are continually looking for the holy grail or the turnkey indicator that one can set and forget."
No, TA isn't about testing an indicator. Statistical analysis is, at least to the simple extent of backtesting to provide performance data on TA-based strategies.
TA should be about supplying proven indicators for trading tools. More often than not, it's not.
Why don't you just deal with the basic issue: lack of performance data to buttress most TA indicators?
Too close to reality for you? Too much "hard work"? I understand. Just another trader-wannabe babbling about "positive thinking" and overreacting to anybody who dares hint your pet strategy may be based on nothing more than wishful thinking and (so far) dumb luck.
Why don't you lay back and take a more logical approach to the contributions and questions from the membership here, instead of acting like you are the end-all of trading? You're not, grob's not, I'm not, no one is. Learn how to play nicely with others around here or hit the road.
Good luck in your search for profitability.
Quote from kut2k2:
Your innumeracy is duly noted. Ask any mathematician, he or she will tell you that the diff between 99% and 100% is infinite.
Sounds like the average TA author to me.
Yes this validates your lack of perception quite nicely.
Let's review your so-called offering:
"TA is really not about testing an indicator. It's about quantifying the behaviour of buyers and sellers. Too many trader-wannabe's cannot get beyond the idea that trading involves hard work and risk. They are continually looking for the holy grail or the turnkey indicator that one can set and forget."
No, TA isn't about testing an indicator. Statistical analysis is, at least to the simple extent of backtesting to provide performance data on TA-based strategies.
TA should be about supplying proven indicators for trading tools. More often than not, it's not.
Why don't you just deal with the basic issue: lack of performance data to buttress most TA indicators?
Too close to reality for you? Too much "hard work"? I understand. Just another trader-wannabe babbling about "positive thinking" and overreacting to anybody who dares hint your pet strategy may be based on nothing more than wishful thinking and (so far) dumb luck.
Why don't you lay back and take a more logical approach to the contributions and questions from the membership here, instead of acting like you are the end-all of trading? You're not, grob's not, I'm not, no one is. Learn how to play nicely with others around here or hit the road.
I am happy to say that I share the opinion of inandlong and poundtherock. I do feel that you're being overly generous with your good wishes though ptr --- I often just hope that such people will trade their accounts as hard as they possibly can
Go for it kut2k2!