Why I Don't Believe in TA

MAESTRO · Feb 12, 2013

It has been a long time since I posted anything on this distinguished forum. The topic at hand is obviously not new and has been discussed at least 10 times since I joined this site back in early 2000s. As in my previous posts I would like to make a suggestion. In order for this discussion to make any sense the participants should first agree what exactly they call "Technical Analysis". I doubt there will be an agreement, however if there was one then arguments could be made on both sides more precisely and the whole discussion might then make more sense. It could be very beneficial to the new comers (at least) to read this thread providing the subject is refined enough to make logical arguments.

Cheers,
MAESTRO

marketsurfer · Feb 12, 2013

Quote from R. Raskolnikov:

Again, it doesn't matter how much of a genius an academic is or how much insight they have into the topic they are writing about; if they do not have all the data at their disposal to test, then they cannot come to a definitive conclusion. The OP cannot get that thru his/her head.

Do you really believe that you have access to more or better data than folks who study the miniuta of what you imagine yourself doing? That's ridiculous and the utmost in arrogance. Some alias sitting at his wife's house on the Internet has better data sets than top academics who can access data you don't even know exists? This is getting sad.

Eyez · Feb 12, 2013

Quote from marketsurfer:

Effective, objective TA does not exist--- but you just keep on searching. One day you might be able to tell how many moves in one direction increases the odds of the next move reversing or being in the same direction. Untill then, enjoy pretending your random entries provide an edge. surf

Just because you are unaware of the rules, does not mean it does not exist. again, this is the world is flat and earth is center of universe argument. + It seems like you are the one searching.

I find great comfort in knowing that you will die before you figure it out.

enjoy your ignorance

R. Raskolnikov · Feb 12, 2013

You're still not getting it. I'm not saying I have access to MORE data, I'm saying that the way in which someone strings together a bunch of rules (could be 3 could be 100 or more) to create a system and all the inputs out there at ones disposal creates a near infinite combo of possibilities.

You haven't thought about all the complexities and subtleties that could be inserted into system to refine and improve performance. The study you posted was so basic, it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Quote from marketsurfer:

Do you really believe that you have access to more or better data than folks who study the miniuta of what you imagine yourself doing? That's ridiculous and the utmost in arrogance. Some alias sitting at his wife's house on the Internet has better data sets than top academics who can access data you don't even know exists? This is getting sad.

marketsurfer · Feb 12, 2013

Quote from Eyez:

Just because you are unaware of the rules, does not mean it does not exist. again, this is the world is flat and earth is center of universe argument. + It seems like you are the one searching.

enjoy your ignorance

Clearly the magic formula is only available to the chosen few. Why 100% of these golks only exist on the internet is the real mystery.

R. Raskolnikov · Feb 12, 2013

He proclaims he does not know everything, but then proclaims that if he doesn't know something it either doesn't exist or we are FOS

Quote from Eyez:

Just because you are unaware of the rules, does not mean it does not exist. again, this is the world is flat and earth is center of universe argument. + It seems like you are the one searching.

enjoy your ignorance

marketsurfer · Feb 12, 2013

Quote from R. Raskolnikov:

He proclaims he does not know everything, but then proclaims that if he doesn't know something it either doesn't exist or we are FOS

Subjective, discretionary trading via TA may work in some circumstances.

I am open to the possibility.

Unfortunately, as soon as you claim it's objective is when I know you are confused or making stuff up.

surf

Eyez · Feb 12, 2013

Quote from marketsurfer:

Clearly the magic formula is only available to the chosen few. Why 100% of these golks only exist on the internet is the real mystery.

It's not a formula, it's comes with experience.

How many of those academics your citing make their money from actual trading vs. their book sales?

[crickets]

Eyez · Feb 12, 2013

Quote from marketsurfer:

Unfortunately, as soon as you claim it's objective is when I know you are confused or making stuff up.

surf

That's exactly my thought process when your talking about price drivers.

marketsurfer · Feb 12, 2013

Quote from Eyez:

It's not a formula, it's comes with experience.

How many of those academics your citing make their money from actual trading vs. their book sales?

[crickets]

Please stop, you haven't a clue.

One's i personally know:
Vic niederhoffer is one trading academic who doesn't believe in TA. Nasim Taleb and James Altucher are two more off the top of my head. I could name multiple more given the time to think it over...

I'll agree, it's possibly subjective ( experience). But it can't be quantified , isn't objective and can't be programmed.

surf