Why does TA not work (for you)?

[luckyluciano]

Surf, lol at yourself......
You Criticize and ignore a great traders successes and their tools because in your view he has made mistaken calls. This negates the correct calls. Is that the way life works?

Like I said previously, it's obvious and
does not need to be repeated, that TA is not a guarantee of anything. It just is a tool along with other tools to identify profitable trade set ups.

To say that TA means nothing even though common sense and hugely successful professionals indicate TA is an expression of fundamentals is very funny indeed.

Why not simply enter a trade against the trend with your money management and see how long your account lasts. Try trading against the best consistent trend out there.... ITP.to. Let's see how many times you will be profitable.

Could it be......? Maybe the stock has great management, decreased competition, improved margins and sales etc. and the trend is reflective of this?

Not a guarantee obviously but is this not an edge?

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from R. Raskolnikov:

Surf missed your logical post concerning HIS article.

No, I didn't miss it. I just didn't want to bring attention to the clear flaw in your understanding.

Private information isn't a TA tactic or new way to crunch past data-- its inside information, non public stock moving information-- not a new TA tactic-- seriously, you don't really think this, right?

surf

 

[hoodooman]

After all these posts, is anyone on the side of marketsurfer? Seriously, I just can't keep up with the dialog.

 

[logic_man]

Quote from marketsurfer:

How many moves or series of moves in one direction increase the odds that the next move or series will be in the same direction?

I already told you there is an equation to solve for this to a better than chance level of probability.

Do you really expect the answer to be "5" or "2" or "17" or some other point estimate? Those numbers can be the answer in a specific instance, but the "answer" has to exist at a higher level of abstraction.

And to answer your other post, if you are the one who discovered the equation, it IS private information unless you divulge it.

 

[R. Raskolnikov]

Focus on this instead:

"There are few sophisticated technical rules that may explain why technical analysis works. For example, Treynor and Ferguson (JF, 2985) demonstrate the usefulness of past price information in making an abnormal profit. They develop a Bayesian probability estimate using past price data to assess whether the market incorporates some firm-specific information, that is made available to investors."

Quote from marketsurfer:

No, I didn't miss it. I just didn't want to bring attention to the clear flaw in your understanding.

Private information isn't a TA tactic or new way to crunch past data-- its inside information, non public stock moving information-- not a new TA tactic-- seriously, you don't really think this, right?

surf

 

[logic_man]

Quote from R. Raskolnikov:

Surf missed your logical post concerning HIS article.

Eh, surf has more fun knocking down his strawmen or employing superficial understanding of concepts. It's pretty clear he has no talent for abstraction, which is absolutely essential if you are going to get out of the market's weeds.

 

[luckyluciano]

I suppose Dan Zanger is another fool for watching charts and using technical analysis and magic.

 

[logic_man]

Quote from marketsurfer:

No, I didn't miss it. I just didn't want to bring attention to the clear flaw in your understanding.

Private information isn't a TA tactic or new way to crunch past data-- its inside information, non public stock moving information-- not a new TA tactic-- seriously, you don't really think this, right?

surf

Dude, everyone in the world knows that if you have "inside information", you can make abnormal profits. That's why it's against the law.

So, why would an academic write about "private information" with the definition you just gave when everyone knows that you can make abnormal profits with that kind of private information? What analysis is even necessary in that case?

What the authors mean by "private information" is something different and can include methods of analysis known only to the ones doing the analysis.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from luckyluciano:

I suppose Dan Zanger is another fool for watching charts and using technical analysis and magic.

Astrologer Arch Crawford too. He had the number one ranked market newsletter for years--- all based on astrology. Makes astro true, right?

surf

 

[Fah Q]

Quote from logic_man:

Dude, everyone in the world knows that if you have "inside information", you can make abnormal profits. That's why it's against the law.

So, why would an academic write about "private information" with the definition you just gave when everyone knows that you can make abnormal profits with that kind of private information? What analysis is even necessary in that case?

What the authors mean by "private information" is something different and can include methods of analysis known only to the ones doing the analysis.

marketsurf must have been kidding. he is smarter than that. he is just being stubborn and deceptive.