TA debunked?

This has got to be the best 2 sentences I have ever read on t2w.

Don't these kinds of debates all hinge on what you consider TA, and what you mean by predict?

If I look at the price of the Dow and see it sitting around 12900 (so I've used some TA) today and I say tomorrow's close, price will be above 10000 is that not predictive?

The key point about any predictive model for me is that it the outcome over any sample of predictions has to be significantly better than random chance.

If you wanted to be pedantic I suppose you could have a predictive model that was no better than random chance, and still be predicting.

Yes and given the price of an instrument, couldn't you make predictions as I have above about where price will or will not go with greater than random chance? Therefore isn't price predictive by your definition. And therefore if TA is any analysis using past price, and price as it is unfolding right now, then of course it is predictive.

I thought perhaps you meant prediction as being a certain thing.

I you accept the premis that TA is not predictive your statement is one of what the greater probability is, not a prediction, - there is a difference, nuanced as it may be to some (I don't mean you.)

G/L

I think part of the problem with TA is that there is so much to5h written about it that people misrepresent it or think it's something that it is not.

There is no doubt in my mind that a solid trading edge can be formed from a strategy with an element of random entry however I also believe it is possible to construct an edge with a historic probability of working out.

Of course we do not know the certain outcome of the next trade but we do have a historic probability. lets say the last 1000 times a,b,c & d happened 90% of the time we get X, 10% of the time we get Y. On the next trade #1001 do you think X or Y is more likely. We cannot predict that X will happen but over the next 10 trades X is likely to happen 9 times and Y once, all on past performance alone, everything else being equal.

From my observations the markets are much more neuro-behavioral than I originally thought. Traders bring all of their own irrationality and biases to the marketplace.

Previous support and resistance and/or round numbers are areas where there is likely to be a battle between buyers and sellers (and liquidity games). So I like to look at a chart and say ok if price comes to this point again there is going to be a battle for control.

Assume there is no TA, no charts, how does one determine;

1. which direction to enter a trade
2. where is the exit point
3. where is the stop

Say yesterday's closing price was £100

Yes. It's a matter of what you consider predict to mean. And I think i've debated on this with you before, as you have a very different definition of predict, which is not a wrong definition, it's yours, but not mine. I don't think it's nuanced, as that would imply there is some sort of subtle distinction between a correct interpretation and an incorrect one, when there isn't. Except for you.

Perhaps my view on this is because I think EVERYTHING is a case of probabilities. Nothing is certain. I've looked for things that are certain, but there really aren't any. Even things with probability 1 aren't certain.

And yet another problem with this debate is that if I say TA is any analysis carried out upon price, and price history, there will always be someone who comes along and says, no, TA is indicators and stochastics. Which it is to them. These debates never get anywhere. But the key issue to trading is, can you conclude from past price data, a point of entry and method to trade after point of entry that gives you a probabilistic edge, at least for a time. And the answer is yes. And there's no amount of papers attempting to prove that price is a random walk, never predictable, a martingale, a black Scholes SDE, a Brownian motion, an efficient market or any other concept that is going to make me change my mind from what I know from experience to be true.