The Best TA Book Ever Published!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just for the hell of it, I will say one more thing

I use most of the techniques in the book. I try not to reinvent the wheel. I read work by other researchers and then I look for ways to capitalize on what they have already done. As an example, I found a paper by authors Hsu & Kuan who tested multiple rule sets. They found some interesting things out regarding trading short term momentum. I looked at that and said to myself, "I wonder if there is anything there I can use" Did my own testing to replicate their work (part 1 of any research work) and then went the next step to create my own research for short term momentum indicators for several markets. What I found was that short term momentum is the way to go (for me). Also I found a way to tell when those short term momentum indicators are most likely to work effectively.

Now if you read back in this thread, you will come to the post where Marketsurfer "pronounces" his verdict that Hsu & Kuan were "discredited"..Bullshit.. They did good work and reported it in a scholarly way..What I did was learn from them and put the results to work. I get a concrete return for my hard work on a daily basis.

Hope this helps someone out there.

Steve
 
Quote from JimmyJam:

You've promoted a book as the best technical analysis book ever, written by a guy who by his own statement, does not have proven success as a trader.

What's the point?

Besides selling a book, that is?

And please, don't go into the abstract, keep it concrete.

Give us concrete examples of how this book impacts a traders ability to increase their profitability in the markets.
More...
Quote from steve46:

The simplest answer is as follows;

First, manual testing is fine. Problem is logisticis. It is difficult to manually test enough data to obtain a significant sample size. So what is likely to happen if you test manually is that the result may deceive you into thinking you have a profitable edge, when you really don't. The issue of "bias" is also important. If you test without screening out the bias in the work, the result isn't going to be viable.

Second, I would bet that without reading the book, no one here has a clue as to what White's "Reality Check" process is, even though it has been around a while now. The benefit of the first part of the book is that it puts a trader on the right track as far as completing useful research. Something they can actually make a buck with. If you compare the result of properly done research with the crap that comes out of most Tradestation reports, then you would see what I mean. Problem is (as I have said before) most folks here don't have the skills to properly evaluate the results. So they just take whatever they get and run with it.

Really what the book does is point a finger in the right direction and bring people up to date as to how research should be done. Its up to you to decide whether you want to keep on the way you were, or try to upgrade your performance.
More...

Thanks Steve, that was what I was looking for.

I'll have to follow-up on these concepts. The thing is, to be quite honest with you (and ET), looking at all of the parameters I require for a trade to setup (price action, s/r, indicies and internals, as well as the different combinations of the items listed), it would/will be an expensive process to run accurate and meaningfull tests with a sufficient amount of data.

But I definitely will pursue ths further.

Regards,

JJ
 
I don't want to mislead you JJ, you're a decent guy. If you decide to go down that road, you will find it takes a while and it takes some effort to make it useful..Be prepared. That is why in one of my previous posts, I mentioned that one way to get more folks to buy the book would have been to go in stepwise fashion (much like the "....for Dummies" books), showing folks how it is done..One of the problems with academic authors is that they know how to do these things and consider it easy. You & I may not have that same background and for us a roadmap is necessary..

Steve
 
Well David, you can fire the "steady hand" of Emilie Herman for making 2 mistakes in the first 16 lines of your book (page ix): "alterative" on Line 11 and "I am indebted Dr. Halbert" on Line 16. I hope this shit doesn't drive me nuts, but that is pretty typical of Wiley these days. Tell her to RTFM.
 
Quote from steve46:





Now if you read back in this thread, you will come to the post where Marketsurfer "pronounces" his verdict that Hsu & Kuan were "discredited"..Bullshit.. They did good work and reported it in a scholarly way..What I did was learn from them and put the results to work. I get a concrete return for my hard work on a daily basis.

Hope this helps someone out there.

Steve
More...


many of your posts on this thread actually appear civil and erudite.

however, i must clarify your statement above--- i stated that "some" of hsu&kuan's "research" has been discredited. i did not state that they were discredited. this is a very important distinction.

regards,

surf
 
Quote from marketsurfer:

many of your posts on this thread actually appear civil and erudite.

however, i must clarify your statement above--- i stated that "some" of hsu&kuan's "research" has been discredited. i did not state that they were discredited. this is a very important distinction.

regards,

surf
More...

surf, you are right. Freudian slip. :D
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

Would you like me to post your resume again smurf?
More...

Speaking of discredit . . . I repeat myself. Would you like me to post your resume again smurf?
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

My "system" is testable, objective and programmable. I don't scoff at academia reviewing what I do, I scoff at YOU reviewing it. You are as far from.......
More...


ok, still waiting for proof of the above statement.

thanks,

surf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top