Why does anyone take technical analysis seriously?

[marketsurfer]

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.

I had you on ignore so i did not see the earlier posts.

Man, talk about grasping at straws.


Did u even read the paper? Here's a hint --

This paper studies the value of technical and fundamental investment recommendations simultaneously broadcasted on the TV show “Talking Numbers.”----

See anything flawed with extrapolating those results to reach the conclusion that TA works? Furthermore, the paper goes on to say that TA has zero value when applied to treasuries or commofities other than the individual stocks on the TV show.


What incredibly weak research and evidence for your conclusion.

 

[kut2k2]

I had you on ignore so i did not see the earlier posts.

Man, talk about grasping at straws.


Did u even read the paper? Here's a hint --

This paper studies the value of technical and fundamental investment recommendations simultaneously broadcasted on the TV show “Talking Numbers.”----

See anything flawed with extrapolating those results to reach the conclusion that TA works? Furthermore, the paper goes on to say that TA has zero value when applied to treasuries or commofities other than the individual stocks on the TV show.


What incredibly weak research and evidence for your conclusion.

Weak evidence is better than zero evidence, which is precisely what you've provided for your claim that TA never works.

We also notice how once again you've ignored the HNS backtest. Par for the course for you. Something shows you're wrong, and you pretend like it didn't happen.

The TA that not only works but works very well isn't going to be publicized. Why on earth would it be? Plenty of history of new TA that worked at first but stopped working once it became widely known. Who is going to destroy his TA edge through disclosure just to prove you and the other naysayers wrong? Nobody with any sense.

Sorry, the TA that works well is beyond you. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[romik]

Let's go with the argument that TA doesn't work. Well, in that case surely there would be money to be made fading TA based signals. But no, it also doesn't work, not all the time. Finding a systematic edge is a bloody hard task, very few would find it and of course this edge would one day stop working. The key for majority who are left with a 50/50 probability is to establish an edge via money management. What strategy could you come up with when faced with a 50/50 probability, what if your win rate was expected to be 30%, could you still pull it off?

 

[Visaria]

Let's start with someone who is already a millionaire and his networth is $1,000,000 he is retired and is fed up with the Fed's ZIRP, he is not one of the elite traders and enjoys a rather pathetic 26% win rate! He risks no more than 1% of his networth on any one trade, yet his winning trades are being locked at +3% of his networth. So let's see:

$1,000,000 networth

300 trades a year

220 losses @ 1% risk -$2,200,000

80 wins @ 3% reward +$2,400,000

Yearly gross gain +20%

26% win rate

So a 20% return all of the sudden looks amazing considering that he would get F... All If left in a bank or invests (cough cough) in government bonds. He has beaten the inflation and made a good profit too. Not too shabby if you ask me

Actually it comes to a gain of 16.6%

0.99^220 x 1.03 ^ 80

 

[romik]

Actually it comes to a gain of 16.6%

0.99^220 x 1.03 ^ 80

I went to a village school for farmers bro, so in my case it's 200k/1mx100=20%

 

[marketsurfer]

Weak evidence is better than zero evidence, which is precisely what you've provided for your claim that TA never works.

We also notice how once again you've ignored the HNS backtest. Par for the course for you. Something shows you're wrong, and you pretend like it didn't happen.

The TA that not only works but works very well isn't going to be publicized. Why on earth would it be? Plenty of history of new TA that worked at first but stopped working once it became widely known. Who is going to destroy his TA edge through disclosure just to prove you and the other naysayers wrong? Nobody with any sense.

Sorry, the TA that works well is beyond you. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I agree with you. TA could work and there may be a secretive bat cave full of traders who are amassing a fortune using it in their IB account but who live like average midwesterners because they are afraid of the Feds.

It is possible but the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.

surf

 

[romik]

But Surf, if your NON-TA method books in on average 50% win rate, then it's also edgeless, what's up with your argument bruv?

 

[kut2k2]

I agree with you. TA could work and there may be a secretive bat cave full of traders who are amassing a fortune using it in their IB account but who live like average midwesterners because they are afraid of the Feds.

It is possible but the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.

surf

Ahh, surf. Really? I also doubt there is some secret society of high-worth TA traders who independently discovered very profitable TA and magically came together. Why even go there?

There are plenty of wealthy traders. Chances are at least some who use TA lie about it to keep others from learning what they've learned. Maybe they just don't want a gaggle of lazy chuckleheads pestering them for their trading secrets so they pretend it's all discretionary and very hard to do when in actuality they've boiled it down to an algorithm.

There's this amazing assumption that once a profitable TA method is discovered, it will spontaneously spread like wildfire. But if it's not talked about other than obliquely, why would it spread?

 

[Visaria]

George Soros uses TA. Not exclusively mind, but he does use it. When the best trader in the world uses TA, i really don't see the point of these stupid threads.

 

[marketsurfer]

Ahh, surf. Really? I also doubt there is some secret society of high-worth TA traders who independently discovered very profitable TA and magically came together. Why even go there?

There are plenty of wealthy traders. Chances are at least some who use TA lie about it to keep others from learning what they've learned. Maybe they just don't want a gaggle of lazy chuckleheads pestering them for their trading secrets so they pretend it's all discretionary and very hard to do when in actuality they've boiled it down to an algorithm.

It's possible. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Sure, there are plenty of wealthy retail TAtraders but 99% of them started out wealthier.

There's a few outliers but EVERY one of these people end up selling crap or turn to OPM.

WHY??

Because the market is constantly changing which is why these TA and Price action folks who claim to have been doing the same thing for years and years are not telling the truth --