Why does anyone take technical analysis seriously?

[wrbtrader]

CQG is my data..they never said their data was going to lead me to profitability.

Psych issues and discipline issues are exacerbated by HFT-paced markets

I never said any data vendor said TA was going to lead anyone to profitability although several do actually say such with clever advertisements that implies profitability...

The most powerful suite of products for all of your financial market needs.

To be clear, I said they are the biggest pushers of TA and you pay a pretty penny for your data and chart service every month. Next in line below them are the websites like Stockcharts.com

After that, the bottom fishers are the book authors and they are not subtle. They get straight at it and say things like...

You'll retire young.

Therefore, as to the issue of which ones makes the most promise about profitability in a direct advertisement...that's the book authors in combo with anonymous forum posters...no debates about it.

 

[romik]

If you buy into a franchise does it warrant you would make a return?

 

[marketsurfer]

That's alot of thinking
...joking aside...successful Trading is part Art, part Science. -- that's why alot of things are or may appear very Grey...and highly debatable.

I agree with you that TA is an art-- it is not a science since it can't be objectively tested and there is very limited evidence that there is any edge there--- surf

 

[marketsurfer]

Surf, you still haven't explained how would you establish targets if past data has no relevance.

I break time into three periods--- pre-trade ( when past price is irrelevent), trade ( when past/future price takes on a subjective relevance based purely on personal entry point), post-trade ( when once again, past price has no relevance.

Man, I should be charging for this guidance.

Past data has no relevance in when or why I enter a trade in a particular direction-- however, once entered, obviously context of the price range becomes relevant but only after the trade is entered since its completely subjective to your personal entry price--- hopefully this makes sense, it was difficult for me to explain completely. peace surf

 

[marketsurfer]

If you buy into a franchise does it warrant you would make a return?

And they (franchisors) are not allowed to say or even suggest that you will make $$-- unlike the vendors per WRB. surf

 

[wrbtrader]

That's alot of thinking
...joking aside...successful Trading is part Art, part Science. -- that's why alot of things are or may appear very Grey...and highly debatable.

There's discretionary traders and there's automation (codes/program) traders.

The automaton (codes/program) traders obviously believe trading is scientific. In contrast, discretionary traders uses a little of everything but no automation. Thus, on any given trading day for a discretionary trader, good or bad, there's usually a reason behind that particular trading day results. For example, one trading day the key to profits or losses could be discipline. Another trading day the key could be the trade signal. Another trading day the key could be trade experience. Another trading day the key could be risk management. Another trading day the key could be diversification, another trading day the key was one lucky trade, another trading day the key was collaboration with one of your trading buddies and so on...

That's discretionary trading and I don't have any problems with it being called an ART. I've read in various science magazines, psychology magazines that the human mind can do things that computers can not do. Yet, that gap between the two is closing.Therefore, its not that it appears grey...its more like a discretionary trader has more things to deal with or manage...something most traders fail at involving managing their trading plan that involves all the above mentioned.

By the way, I always get confused by another group of traders that call themselves mechanical traders. Usually someone using an indicator system but they manually enter/exit their trades. Thus, I'm not sure if they are really just discretionary traders.

Yeah, discretionary trading is highly debatable. Most of the TA debates by the naysayers is with discretionary traders. The TA naysayers are not too smart to understand they should be debating with the automation traders that believe TA is scientific and can be quantifiable proven. They're the ones they should be pointing their fingers at when they demand seeing quantifiable proof.

I find the above mix up by the TA naysayers hilarious as they continue asking discretionary traders for codes or quantifiable proof.

I also find it odd they don't bother the program system designers using TA down in their threads...very strange as if they're too afraid to debate with those about the scientific aspects of trading.

 

[marketsurfer]

There's discretionary traders and there's automation (codes/program) traders.

The automaton (codes/program) traders obviously believe trading is scientific. In contrast, discretionary traders uses a little of everything but no automation. Thus, on any given trading day for a discretionary trader, good or bad, there's usually a reason behind that particular trading day results. For example, one trading day the key to profits or losses could be discipline. Another trading day the key could be the trade signal. Another trading day the key could be trade experience. Another trading day the key could be risk management. Another trading day the key could be diversification, another trading day the key was one lucky trade, another trading day the key was collaboration with one of your trading buddies and so on...

That's discretionary trading and I don't have any problems with it being called an ART. I've read in various science magazines, psychology magazines that the human mind can do things that computers can not do. Yet, that gap between the two is closing.Therefore, its not that it appears grey...its more like a discretionary trader has more things to deal with or manage...something most traders fail at involving managing their trading plan that involves all the above mentioned.

By the way, I always get confused by another group of traders that call themselves mechanical traders. Usually someone using an indicator system but they manually enter/exit their trades. Thus, I'm not sure if they are really just discretionary traders.

Yeah, discretionary trading is highly debatable. Most of the TA debates by the naysayers is with discretionary traders. The TA naysayers are not too smart to understand they should be debating with the automation traders that believe TA is scientific and can be quantifiable proven. They're the ones they should be pointing their fingers at when they demand seeing quantifiable proof.

I find the above mix up by the TA naysayers hilarious as they continue asking discretionary traders for codes or quantifiable proof.

I also find it odd they don't bother the program system designers using TA down in their threads...very strange as if they're too afraid to debate with those about the scientific aspects of trading.

The problem is there is very little evidential proof of the success of discretionary TA. Its mostly hearsay and marketing hype.

Its not just Quantatative proof -- i realize this is impossible with discretionary methods.

Evidential proof exists is nearly every other business. Heck even the local dry cleaning guy drives a bentley. But where are the succesful pure TA or price action folks?? The few big mouth phonies were driven off this site in shame after being exposed as vendors.

Im sure there are a few, but they are akin to lottery winners in scarcity.

Have you ever WONDERED WHY?

Regarding systematic TA -- its easily proven to be a lark at the retail level -- just look at yhe 17k plus systems on collective2. See how many last even a year----

 

[lawrence-lugar]

The problem is there is very little evidential proof of the success of discretionary TA.

Im sure there are a few, but they are akin to lottery winners in scarcity.
Have you ever WONDERED WHY?

...It's just like Everything in life...only like 1% or 5 tops...will really truly Succeed. :eek: While 45% will barely float by, and 50% will just flat out fail.
That doesn't necessarily mean there's a flaw in the formula or recipe or lesson or game.

But I generally agree, or personally feel,...most people should just invest their money for the long term in the SPY (S&P 500) or something like that.
I know Trading sounds sexy (and it is or can be), but not everyone is cut out for it.
ops: Some people will try for years and years and years...and never see the light at the end of the tunnel.

,,,Trading is a very fickle business or Game...there's so many potential land mines you can step on...,before (or if) you can reach the promise land.

 

[kut2k2]

The problem is there is very little evidential proof of the success of discretionary TA. Its mostly hearsay and marketing hype.

Its not just Quantatative proof -- i realize this is impossible with discretionary methods.

Evidential proof exists is nearly every other business. Heck even the local dry cleaning guy drives a bentley. But where are the succesful can pure TA or price action folks?? The few big mouth phonies were driven off this site in shame after being exposed as vendors.

Im sure there are a few, but they are akin to lottery winners in scarcity.

Have you ever WONDERED WHY?

Regarding systematic TA -- its easily proven to be a lark at the retail level -- just look at yhe 17k plus systems on collective2. See how many last even a year----

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2648292

This link was posted earlier in this thread by another member. If surf was serious about seeking evidence for TA, he would have found it easily. But we've all seen how surf treats facts he finds inconvenient: he ignores them. He's done it countless times before. He'll probably do it this tine as well.

Here's another inconvenient fact for surf to pretend doesn't exist. He has ignored this one before:

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...fitably-backtested.147576/page-5#post-2218032

Proof that even simple TA can be profitable. Not wildly profitable but for those who claim TA is never profitable, it is undeniable counter-evidence. So surf will have to bury his head in the sand again and pretend that no one has shown him the truth about TA.

 

[romik]

... limited evidence that there is any edge there

How do you define an edge?