If you want to fail as a trader, study TA

[BSD]

Market Wizards Linda Raschke and Marty Schwartz used TA and indicators and made fortunes.

Marty Schwartz averaged out at 33% per month in fact using moving averages, bands, and oscilators lol.

Marc Sperling who I have seen trade has been around for ages has made millions trading with moving averages:

Our Grey1 is another trader who springs to mind who I have witnessed trading live numerous times and making excellent money with great consistency using indicators, CCI with MA's.

TWI who was at a prop firm where many made 50 to a 100% per month and is at a hedge fund now used TA and RSI, and said that many of his colleagues used bollinger bands and oscillators.

Or our BBmac here who uses indicators, etc etc.

Dan Zanger turned 42K into 42 million using TA for Christs sake.

Paul Rotter has an 8 figure income using TA.

Maggi made 55000 % profit in one month in a documented trading challenge of ABN AMRO using TA haha.

If it weren't so pathetic it'd be hilarious.

It really is the hallmark of the loser to overcomplicate what in essence is really so simple like trading.

That's why some people need to shore up their ego by, lol, giving themselves a ludicrous user name like "The Expert" and run around posting endless hot air with absolutely no substance.

While others just go on and make fortunes using TA.

Richard Dennis who turned 400 bucks into hundreds of millions.

Jesse Livermore who turned zilch into what in todays money would have been one Billion !!!

Paul Tudor Jones who used TA and Elliot wave to become a multi Billioniare.

But then they are winners who realized what the success relevant factors are, and that they have nothing to do with rocket science or arcane, convoluted theories trying to identify a non existent holy grail.

Trading is nothing but a probability game where the only means to make money are by trend following through buying breakouts or pullbacks, or alternatively trading reversions to the mean, and all info you need is freely available in price.

That's all this is.

And all this whingeing about stuff not working is nothing but a whine from those who can't make it because they can't see the wood for the trees.

 

[temporarilylight]

lets just all agree that Fundamental Analysis is the way to trade and move on, lol

 

[BSD]

lets just all agree that Fundamental Analysis is the way to trade and move on, lol

Haha great reply mate

 

[Ambrose Ackroyd]

Trading is nothing but a probability game where the only means to make money are by trend following through buying breakouts or pullbacks, or alternatively trading reversions to the mean, and all info you need is freely available in price.

That's all this is.

And all this whingeing about stuff not working is nothing but a whine from those who can't make it because they can't see the wood for the trees.

Nice one.

I like what you say and agree.

 

[BSD]

Thanks AA.



Actually one of the funniest things about this thread - content or rather complete and utter lack of it aside - is it's location....

TA is crap he claims without offering any alternative, not that any exists anyway, but, here it comes, he puts that in psychology ???

 

[Splitlink]

Rathbone is correct, IMO, because a seasoned trader has a lot of homegrown common sense of his own. He will put his line where that commonsense tells him, if he is left alone. The problem is that there are too many gurus about who, really, are only beating their own drums and, as in all facets of life

Bull**** baffles brains

and, so, the issue gets very confused. which is what the marketmakers want.

 

[dealer911]

If it weren't so pathetic it'd be hilarious.

It really is the hallmark of the loser to overcomplicate what in essence is really so simple like trading.

That's why some people need to shore up their ego by, lol, giving themselves a ludicrous user name like "The Expert" and run around posting endless hot air with absolutely no substance.

While others just go on and make fortunes using TA.

Richard Dennis who turned 400 bucks into hundreds of millions.

Jesse Livermore who turned zilch into what in todays money would have been one Billion !!!

Paul Tudor Jones who used TA and Elliot wave to become a multi Billioniare.

But then they are winners who realized what the success relevant factors are, and that they have nothing to do with rocket science or arcane, convoluted theories trying to identify a non existent holy grail.

Trading is nothing but a probability game where the only means to make money are by trend following through buying breakouts or pullbacks, or alternatively trading reversions to the mean, and all info you need is freely available in price.

That's all this is.

And all this whingeing about stuff not working is nothing but a whine from those who can't make it because they can't see the wood for the trees.

Do you think it is harder to make money using T.A than it used to be ?.. I beleive in using both fundemental and T.A myself.. I worry now though that with SO many people looking at the same indicators (just different combinations!) and with everyone having access to T.A packages and home computers I just think that T.A has lost some of it's power!.. I dont think many of jesse livermores competitors had a clue about price action etc so he was deffinantly at an advantage.

 

[BSD]

Hi dealer,

I've been at this for over 10 years now, and can't really discern any fundamental changes in trading in that time.

Matter of fact if I go look at charts from decades ago I still can't see any big difference to todays charts.

My understanding of markets is that they simply move in cycles from overbought to oversold, always have, always will, and it's simply our job to jump onboard when a new one starts and ride it until it ends.

Of course we'll get our share of false starts, cycles that start out looking like a lion but end up fizzling out like a kitten, so as long as one can live with the fact that accepting losers is simply a cost of doing business as a trader all's well.

As for many more people seeing the same indicators these days, well, all they are telling us is the same info that just looking at price itself can also tell you, eg higher highs / lows means we're in an uptrend, and then just wait for an oversold situation aka pullback before you enter, Richard Wyckoff traded like that a hundred years ago already, so I think nothing much has changed there either apart from computers offering us additional ways of displaying or interpreting the same data that's always been around, I just happen to like the visuals and ease of indicators, which is why I use em, but it could just as easily be done via price alone.

You could also get from Frankfurt to London by car without a navigation system using good old fashioned maps, or once arrived park without the aid of parking sensors, but these new things exist, they don't offer any new info, but they make the info that's always been around perhaps somewhat more comfortable to access.

I mean as long as price keeps moving from A to B or even just chops around in a range with sufficient points to get you in and out and cover your transaction costs plus one will be able to keep making money at this.

Most people fail at this because they fail to identify whats really success relevant - markets move in cycles, there is no holy grail, losing is part and parcel of trading, and that's pretty much it already.

And on top of not being able to seperate the wheat from the chaff most simply do not have the discipline to do what needs to be done.

That's why most fail, not because this is rocket science which it isn't.

 

[nine]

Glad to see I stirred it up a tiny bit. I'll be interested to see if the OP has some beef to offer though.

Some questions were raised so I'll try and give an opinion (because thats what most stuff about trading is after all). First though ... lets get clear ... technical analysis is the science / art / method / or whatever of making trading decisions based on the action of price, price against time, or price and volume against time (please excuse any missed categories). All else is sophisticated dissection aimed at making one's argument look better.

1 - Some markets have a finite supply and some are effectively infinite. Stocks are finite (float) but futures is infinite in that any number of contracts can be created.

Might be true in theory ... but infinity is a long way from any market I ever traded.

2 - Some people claim that TA is about psychology. This is often followed by an explanation of some guy with no stop loss who gets out where he got in. I presume he brought a lot. Anyway - if it is psychology, then how do you account for times when the 'mood' was different ? For instance, there were some wild swings at the start of the Iraq war. If we trade around those levels today - would we expect the psychology to be the same.

Some people might but the core definitions are that TA is about using PV and T (all or some) to make entry and exit decisions for the purpose of making a buck. To quote another post "nothing but a probability game."

3 - 'Reverse for shorts' - When I see markets move down, they behave differently to markets moving up. People seem to react faster to fear than greed. So how is it that traditional TA keeps telling us to turn the rules upside down for shorts.

TA doesn't tell you anything of the kind unless you want to limit it for the purposes of making yourself look smarter. Some markets are symmetrical but many are not in my experience ... read the behaviour of price and trade the context and patterns (that's all Split's wife is doing and to me that is pure TA).

4 - Some markets have derivatives. Stocks for instance. In this case, some things outside of that market itself obviously (to me) have some bearing on the price of the underlying. I have read research on price clustering near expiration times. Someone relying on TA alone would see this clustering and think it was support or resistance.

So what. If you believe your TA you expect to have losers and winners. Sometimes it because a building ran into an aircraft, sometimes its news, so what? You had better expect a black swan or you might as well be a fundamental analyst.

5 - That can be said about democracy and we all know how good that is.

I have a theory. Democracy is crap. Its not at all good ... except for one thing. Unlike a dictatorship, kingdom or communist state, when the *******s become annoying enough they get voted out.

6 - Do you think it is harder to make money using T.A than it used to be ?

I have never found it all that easy. I suspect it wasn't easy for most people in the 1920s either. Its true that markets seem to be continuously evolving so its up to us to keep up or join the dinosaurs.

 

[Splitlink]

Hi dealer,

I've been at this for over 10 years now, and can't really discern any fundamental changes in trading in that time.

Matter of fact if I go look at charts from decades ago I still can't see any big difference to todays charts.

My understanding of markets is that they simply move in cycles from overbought to oversold, always have, always will, and it's simply our job to jump onboard when a new one starts and ride it until it ends.

Of course we'll get our share of false starts, cycles that start out looking like a lion but end up fizzling out like a kitten, so as long as one can live with the fact that accepting losers is simply a cost of doing business as a trader all's well.

As for many more people seeing the same indicators these days, well, all they are telling us is the same info that just looking at price itself can also tell you, eg higher highs / lows means we're in an uptrend, and then just wait for an oversold situation aka pullback before you enter, Richard Wyckoff traded like that a hundred years ago already, so I think nothing much has changed there either apart from computers offering us additional ways of displaying or interpreting the same data that's always been around, I just happen to like the visuals and ease of indicators, which is why I use em, but it could just as easily be done via price alone.

You could also get from Frankfurt to London by car without a navigation system using good old fashioned maps, or once arrived park without the aid of parking sensors, but these new things exist, they don't offer any new info, but they make the info that's always been around perhaps somewhat more comfortable to access.

I mean as long as price keeps moving from A to B or even just chops around in a range with sufficient points to get you in and out and cover your transaction costs plus one will be able to keep making money at this.

Most people fail at this because they fail to identify whats really success relevant - markets move in cycles, there is no holy grail, losing is part and parcel of trading, and that's pretty much it already.

And on top of not being able to seperate the wheat from the chaff most simply do not have the discipline to do what needs to be done.

That's why most fail, not because this is rocket science which it isn't.

Ah! "Most do not do what needs to be done!" Most go from one textbook rule to another, instead of coming to their own conclusions.

Anyway, I'm off for a walk in the park. Take care.

 

[barjon]

mmm, it seems to me that when traders enter a trade they are "taking a view" on the future direction of price across the timescale they favour. It doesn't really matter how they arrive at that "view" - whether by it being set for them automatically; or by where price is in relation to some squiggly lines on the chart; or by some in-depth analysis of fundamentals; or by a deep understanding of market mechanics; or by a similar understanding of human psychology; or by the positioning of the planets; etc.

I say that because I doubt that any method of "taking a view" can be said to "work" in the sense that it is guaranteed to result in a successful trade.

Success, after all, is about turning a profit and I would say that's got more to do with how traders manage what they've got once they are in a trade than it does about how they got into it in the first place.

good trading

jon

 

[coopster]

I find this quite interesting. I am a beginner that has been sent down the TA route due to the huge amount of information available on the subject . TA attempts to document what would otherwise be almost random movements of a market and is very reliable in hindsight which is of no use to anyone but so easy to write a book about!

The original poster and some others are saying TA doesn't work and you have to understand the mood of the market and know what the big boys are doing. Interesting but how, phone them up and ask them? TA does at least give a point of reference from previous events, even though conditions today are not the same as yesterday etc.

I like everybody here would love to hear of a "system" or "method" of reading the market that doesn't use a single S/R line or trend line or candlestick pattern that returns a success rate of say 75+% but the details seem to be a little slow in coming in this thread which several readers have already pointed out. More answering questions with questions.

Maybe there is a way where you could show us actual trades that you have taken and give the reasons why. I suggest using a chart for the simplicity value of seeing the outcome of the trade, even though the chart may not have played a role in deciding to enter. What lead you to a particular stock/future/currency, what made you say "now is the time to invest". How did you guage where your target was and where you should exit if it goes against you?

thanks, Coop

 

[BSD]

Ah! "Most do not do what needs to be done!" Most go from one textbook rule to another, instead of coming to their own conclusions.

Anyway, I'm off for a walk in the park. Take care.

Yup mate, have fun, don't chat up too many girls.



Just did some introspection here, and guess the reason why I'm feeling somewhat cantankerous and contrary this am is because I had a quarrel with my wife yesterday, and she's been threatening that if I misbehave again she's going to pull my ears till I look like a bunny which according to her won't be funny !!!

 

[DionysusToast]

Ah! "Most do not do what needs to be done!" Most go from one textbook rule to another, instead of coming to their own conclusions.

Indeed & it's the traditional TA, the textbook TA that doesn't work.

If you look at people mentioned on here - Grey1 for instance, he had a very good idea of how the market was structured and how it worked. Without this, you are pi$$ing in the wind. I don't see the stuff that Grey was discussing in any of Elders books. Also remember that Grey did do live sessions where he traded an oil stock after the 10:30 oil inventory announcement - so don't think he's all squiggly lines.

The questions I asked - for instance about the finite market, will definitely be felt when there's a short squeeze and people rush to cover but supply is an issue. On the other hand, short interest is only reported twice a month, so sometimes the information is out of date. None of what is in this paragraph is covered in traditional TA but it's hard to see how it's not relevant. In fact, putting questions to those 'religious' on TA never gets a reply to the question, just a rant to the effect that "TA Works".

Same for price clustering - if you didn't know about it - how would you think that action was not support/resistance. The Answer - TA JUST WORKS ! DONT SCRATCH BENEATH THE SURFACE ! JUST DO IT !!

For some reason when an 'insult' is hurled at traditional TA, people think that the alternative is trading based on P/E ratios - or the 'traditional' FA.

Perhaps the issue here is that people don't study market structure, the impact of derivatives on stocks and other such delights and so make assumptions as to what a non "traditional TA" approach would look like.

So perhaps another way to put it - neither traditional FA (valuation ratios etc), nor traditional TA as they are taught in all of those books on amazon.com will work.

 

[neil]

TOTALLY agree !!!

What a totally empty, attention seeking bull**** thread.

Is this guy Socrates resurrected ?

He too only ever posted crap and couldn't trade his way out of a paper bag if his life depended on that either lol.

Market Wizards Linda Raschke and Marty Schwartz used TA and indicators and made fortunes.

Marty Schwartz averaged out at 33% per month in fact using moving averages, bands, and oscilators lol.

Marc Sperling who I have seen trade has been around for ages has made millions trading with moving averages:

http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/nyregion/14partying.html

I have honestly never seen any pro making a living from this who doesn't at a very minimum have MA's up on their chart.

Trading is my only income and I use MA's, bollinger bands and an oscilator.

Our Grey1 is another trader who springs to mind who I have witnessed trading live numerous times and making excellent money with great consistency using indicators, CCI with MA's.

TWI who was at a prop firm where many made 50 to a 100% per month and is at a hedge fund now used TA and RSI, and said that many of his colleagues used bollinger bands and oscillators.

Or our BBmac here who uses indicators, etc etc.

Dan Zanger turned 42K into 42 million using TA for Christs sake.

Paul Rotter has an 8 figure income using TA.

Maggi made 55000 % profit in one month in a documented trading challenge of ABN AMRO using TA haha.

But then these people trade, and don't go posting nonsense threads with absolutely zero value added apart from attention grabbing smoke and screens with no substance or value added whatsoever.

I will guarantee you 100% that you will never ever see any live trades from this guy because all he has to offer is hot air.

Only time Socrates tried trading live the only sorry results were losses after losses too weren't they haha.

Could try this solution

 

[temporarilylight]

Id definitely call grey a technical trader tho, DT. In fact, his private sub forum was called 'technical traders' I think?) Some of his methods were quite TA based. Lots of his stuff was to do with cycles. Other stuff was a little different, but id still definitely call it TA. (were you also in the live trading sessions we witnessed? cant remember. I have some of them on my PC somewhere.)

Also brings us back to the issue of those dismissing TA (which im fine with, to each their own) offering so little detail in explanation of an alternative. In fact, YOU have been one of the only ones to actually throw some ideas around in some interesting threads that you've started yourself, and should be commended for that. I have no time for posters like 'the expert' tho. Ive seen his kind so many times over the years on various forums.


Its a shame Grey has gone. He was a fountain of knowledge. Totally open and generous with his thoughts. Didn't talk in riddles.

Anyway. Football time.

 

[dcraig1]

Its a shame Grey has gone. He was a fountain of knowledge. Totally open and generous with his thoughts. Didn't talk in riddles.

The "Didn't talk in riddles" is the most pertinent observation here. When somebody cannot concisely and succinctly describe their trading method/system /analysis/methodology they are either unclear in their own mind or spinning bull****. When threads go ob for 20, 30 40 pages and the most diligent reader cannot ascertain what they are saying it is almost always bull****.

 

[N Rothschild]

TOTALLY agree !!!

What a totally empty, attention seeking bull**** thread.

Is this guy Socrates resurrected ?

He too only ever posted crap and couldn't trade his way out of a paper bag if his life depended on that either lol.

Market Wizards Linda Raschke and Marty Schwartz used TA and indicators and made fortunes.

Marty Schwartz averaged out at 33% per month in fact using moving averages, bands, and oscilators lol.

Marc Sperling who I have seen trade has been around for ages has made millions trading with moving averages:

http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/nyregion/14partying.html

I have honestly never seen any pro making a living from this who doesn't at a very minimum have MA's up on their chart.

Trading is my only income and I use MA's, bollinger bands and an oscilator.

Our Grey1 is another trader who springs to mind who I have witnessed trading live numerous times and making excellent money with great consistency using indicators, CCI with MA's.

TWI who was at a prop firm where many made 50 to a 100% per month and is at a hedge fund now used TA and RSI, and said that many of his colleagues used bollinger bands and oscillators.

Or our BBmac here who uses indicators, etc etc.

Dan Zanger turned 42K into 42 million using TA for Christs sake.

Paul Rotter has an 8 figure income using TA.

Maggi made 55000 % profit in one month in a documented trading challenge of ABN AMRO using TA haha.

But then these people trade, and don't go posting nonsense threads with absolutely zero value added apart from attention grabbing smoke and screens with no substance or value added whatsoever.

I will guarantee you 100% that you will never ever see any live trades from this guy because all he has to offer is hot air.

Only time Socrates tried trading live the only sorry results were losses after losses too weren't they haha.

thats like 10 people out of possibly millions of failures? unimpressive!

 

[squall321]

why does anyone care how anyone else trades?

unless they are managing your money, i dont know why anyone is bothered

a stranger you just met on the internet is using a different method...so?

 

[Splitlink]

why does anyone care how anyone else trades?

unless they are managing your money, i dont know why anyone is bothered

a stranger you just met on the internet is using a different method...so?

It's nosiness and a desire to be better than the rest. That's human nature and is natural
to all of us. If we think that someone else is doing better than us, we'll try to worm out what it is. God help us if we become successful at what the other does. He becomes a guru who can do no wrong and we become hooked! Much backslapping around the thread. Most of us like the esteem of our peers and if we are not careful, like Wasp, we overstep ourselves.