Technical analysis "debunked" article

I read this article on the subject of TA with great interest this morning but would be interested to hear the views of some others on here as to the validity of it's arguments.

Technical Analysis Debunked: 5 Reasons why we don't believe in Charting - Yahoo! Finance UK

I'm very much a newbie having read a few books on TA and Spreadbetting strategy (Malcolm Prior's book the name of which escapes me just now) and am just at the stage where I'm beginning paper trading some of the methodologies which I've been studying before risking any capital.

I've been genuinely taken aback at the ridicule that the author and some of the comments seem to be directing at TA in general

Any thoughts?

Youz gone get lynched up in herr homie.

I'd say it was 100% correct.

In my experience (which is considerable), I cant ever recall having met a single trader who uses TA succesfully who actually believed that TA was predictive. Furthermore, I cant recall having met a single academic who who didnt believe it was predictive !

I'd advise grabing a copy of David Aaronsons book Evidence Based Technical Analysis, and you'll undertand where that article is coming from.

The article is 100% correct, but dont let that fool you into thinking TA doesnt work, because it does. The problem is, most people are not capable of determining when its working or not working (thankfully)

Cheers Hare. Think I know where you're coming from... I'd agree TA isn't predictive but if it can be used to simply give you an "edge" as to how a security is likely to move, when employed alongside careful risk management your hope would be in the long term that your wins outweigh your losses. That's the theory anyway

This one on the same subject is also good:

Trading Based on Classical Chart Patterns is Modern Alchemy | Price Action Lab Blog

The first article in itself doesn't really do much debunking though does it? It's just a list of anecdotal evidence/opinion.

Never truer words were spoken . All TA does is give you a "reason" to make an assumption (if you're not making your assumption from a random numbers book, of course ) and the hard work starts after that.

The Alchemy article at least seems to give a fairly balanced discussion whereas my feelings on the first was that the author had made his mind up before writing it.

I suppose perception as to whether TA works or not has a lot to do with the expectations of anyone coming into it. If you expect a 95% success rate and see it as a get rich quick/easy scheme then you're going to be disappointed. If you see it as a way to gain an edge to tip the odds in your favour in the long run then it's a more than useful tool.