TA debunked?

[DionysusToast]

Toast. It's just mindless drivel. 4000+ posts in 3 years. I have pointed out earlier in the thread earlier where you proclaim 'TA is the science of finding cause'.

Nope - Textbook TA is the science of studying effect. Get it right.

I am not going to argue over all of your points. You are a 1 man spam machine. Why would I debate with someone who sells software at $349 a pop. No upside

Interesting - because if you were to look for 'all posts by ChocolateDigestive', you will find a hell of a lot of posts that quote what I write and take an opposing view.

This doesn't go your way very often and then you throw your toys out of your pram saying I'm here trying to sell something.

So - it seems you do want to debate with me - your post history shows that quite clearly. What is quite evident is that you can't handle someone disagreeing with you and providing back-up for their points. Hence you then say it's nonsense and you don't want to play any more.

It is clear I have gotten under your paper-thin skin. All I can say is that there is an ignore feature on this forum and I would suggest you add me to your ignore list.

 

[ChocolateDigestive]

Nope - Textbook TA is the science of studying effect. Get it right.



Interesting - because if you were to look for 'all posts by ChocolateDigestive', you will find a hell of a lot of posts that quote what I write and take an opposing view.

This doesn't go your way very often and then you throw your toys out of your pram saying I'm here trying to sell something.

So - it seems you do want to debate with me - your post history shows that quite clearly. What is quite evident is that you can't handle someone disagreeing with you and providing back-up for their points. Hence you then say it's nonsense and you don't want to play any more.

It is clear I have gotten under your paper-thin skin. All I can say is that there is an ignore feature on this forum and I would suggest you add me to your ignore list.

Toast

Here is what you wrote earlier

'TA is the science of looking at effect hoping to find cause.'

I stand by what i say. What you have written is nonsense and it's loaded with your agenda. It is not in line with industry wide definitions of TA. In short you are spamming.

Good day

 

[Atilla]

Nope - Textbook TA is the science of studying effect. Get it right.

I've been thinking about this statement and I think I know what you are pointing at and I partially agree if it is what I think it means.

So if I study past prices and put them up on a chart and see references to

1. Where the market has been come from
2. Draw; trend, support and resistance lines
3. Identify potential entry and exit points

Would I be correct in concluding from your statement this is the studying effect of price movements which you term TA science.


How is this different from you studying ticker tapes and drawing conclusions on when to enter/exit etc?


I fail to see the distinction other than words - to be honest.

 

[Splitlink]

I've been thinking about this statement and I think I know what you are pointing at and I partially agree if it is what I think it means.

So if I study past prices and put them up on a chart and see references to

1. Where the market has been come from
2. Draw; trend, support and resistance lines
3. Identify potential entry and exit points

Would I be correct in concluding from your statement this is the studying effect of price movements which you term TA science.


How is this different from you studying ticker tapes and drawing conclusions on when to enter/exit etc?


I fail to see the distinction other than words - to be honest.

I think that that was well put. Everything is concerned with calculating risk and drawing conclusions and I'm sure that even DTs peers disagree.

 

[kimo'sabby]

This is one of the reasons that trading forums are completely futile (other than as a means to exploit their membership financially)

You would hope that you could give someone a skeleton, and they'd put the flesh on the bones. I probably have around 6 edges, each of which could be described in a half dozen words. Putting the flesh on those bones is a serious full time job that takes real commitment, and is something that's not going to be possible for the majority of people. I wonder how many people reading this thread went as far as downloading some data and spent the day playing around with the idea. I suspect not many

If you put some flesh on the bones for them, unless you provide them with every single detail of why each element works as it does most people wont be able to understand why you made the choices you made, and more importantly, they wont trust those choices. That's a good thing, its never sensible to believe anything you are told, but it doesn't help them make money

If you give away the whole shooting match, its still not of any use to most because it wont suit their individual risk tolerance, available time, expected returns etc.

On a more positive note, at least we still have the lulz and vendor bashing. Your thread at least prompted me to take a closer look at PCA and ICA techniques that I've been meaning to check out for a while, so it wasn't completely wasted.

I have a very good exercise for ES trading, but the cat will not be leaving the bag.

 

[DionysusToast]

I've been thinking about this statement and I think I know what you are pointing at and I partially agree if it is what I think it means.

So if I study past prices and put them up on a chart and see references to

1. Where the market has been come from
2. Draw; trend, support and resistance lines
3. Identify potential entry and exit points

Would I be correct in concluding from your statement this is the studying effect of price movements which you term TA science.

How is this different from you studying ticker tapes and drawing conclusions on when to enter/exit etc?

I fail to see the distinction other than words - to be honest.

I agree 100%. It doesn't matter what you use, it is how you use it. I think that it is in the 'how' that TA falls down. Head and shoulders, bull flags, bear flags all have very specific 'likely' outcomes in TA books that I have seen but this never plays out more than 50% of the time on the hard right edge. Books I have read have been very specific about pattern and outcome. They describe TA as being objective and not subjective.

Perhaps what we should do is agree on what we actually mean by Technical Analysis. I use charts but I think that all the mainstream TA is nonsense. This could just be because my interpretation of the word "TA" is different from other people's.

According to Wiki TA is the following:

In finance, technical analysis is security analysis discipline for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume.

Investopedia says the following:

A method of evaluating securities by analyzing statistics generated by market activity, such as past prices and volume. Technical analysts do not attempt to measure a security's intrinsic value, but instead use charts and other tools to identify patterns that can suggest future activity.

We could argue the merits of TA for a long time - but what if we are all talking about something different? We could all be agreeing in reality whilst we are disagreeing on here...

I think a good book on the topic is "Technical Analysis for the Active Trader" by Gary Norden.

An excerpt...

 

[Pat494]

View attachment 141248

I have a very good exercise for ES trading, but the cat will not be leaving the bag.

Right that's it - I am starting a " be nice to your pussy campaign. "

 

[the hare]

An excerpt...

This problem is so widespread that it can only be due to a deliberate policy of spreading misinformation. Ask who benefits, and then ask who funds the distribution of that misinformation

I rest my case

There's nothing at all wrong with the tactic, its just hypocritical that some of the people involved in this process claim to be "helping traders"

 

[Splitlink]

This problem is so widespread that it can only be due to a deliberate policy of spreading misinformation. Ask who benefits, and then ask who funds the distribution of that misinformation

I rest my case

There's nothing at all wrong with the tactic, its just hypocritical that some of the people involved in this process claim to be "helping traders"

Hypocracy is a fact of life in all aspects of today's society. I don't read papers, any more, preferring a good novel, but I do listen to BBC and LBC a lot online. The naivety of the public is unbelievable.

 

[the hare]

Hypocracy is a fact of life in all aspects of today's society. I don't read papers, any more, preferring a good novel, but I do listen to BBC and LBC a lot online. The naivety of the public is unbelievable.

I don't really have a problem with that, I came to the conclusion long ago that everyone gets what they want, and most people just cant be helped. Furthermore, changing their outlook or perspective, or their financial status, probably isn't helping them anyway

Those who are the most hypocritical seam to take the greatest offense at having their hypocrisy pointed out to them. That's generally a source of considerable lulz which of course is reason enough to do it

 

[Windlesham1]

TA works, funnymentals work(sort of). You just have to define parameters,develop a system. Nobody knows if the world will end tomorrow. Much market action is defined by insider trading,but who cares?
Find something that works for you.
For me it's options trading non directionally.
If you could reason with religious people there wouldn't be any religious people!

 

[Splitlink]

Religion works for me. What are your options?

 

[Pat494]

Whatever happened to all those Greek and Roman Gods ?

Some argue God made man but sadly I think you will find it is a fact that man made God in an image he desired.

A bit like the financial system. If we all believe in it, then it works.

 

[Splitlink]

I believe in Creation but that Man has molded God into his preferred image is so true! Our concept of what is "good" and "evil" in God's eyes is unproven, to me, at least, but it establishes a code of conduct which, over the centuries, has been improved for our benefit. Going against it pushes us into a pit from which we struggle to extricate ourselves but that, in general, we succeed in doing.

 

[forker]

I believe in Creation but that Man has molded God into his preferred image is so true! Our concept of what is "good" and "evil" in God's eyes is unproven, to me, at least, but it establishes a code of conduct which, over the centuries, has been improved for our benefit. Going against it pushes us into a pit from which we struggle to extricate ourselves but that, in general, we succeed in doing.

Science has made a greater impact for our benefit than religion has. Code of conduct and education go hand in hand. Religion has only brought death and destruction since man invented it.

 

[Splitlink]

Science has made a greater impact for our benefit than religion has. Code of conduct and education go hand in hand. Religion has only brought death and destruction since man invented it.

As you wish.

 

[Shakone]

Science has made a greater impact for our benefit than religion has. Code of conduct and education go hand in hand. Religion has only brought death and destruction since man invented it.

Sorry but this seems like a cliche statement. How could you ever prove this? All religions? All science? Over what time period and for whom has it made a greater impact? IS the invention of the ship good for the African when he becomes enslaved and shipped across to the US? If we all eventually get wiped out by nuclear weapons or a bioweapon, is science good for us? If two peoples go to war over some land and resources, but use religion as a tool to convince people to go to war, is that any different from us going to war for oil, and using threats of weapons of mass destruction as an excuse?

It's impossible to tell which is going to have the better or worse impact in the long run for us all. Right now, I'm happy we have both, but in my opinion the advance of science is the bigger danger to me and humanity.

 

[Pat494]

I was alarmed to watch a program on the TV about the seas becoming more acid from polution. All shellfish and many others will be extinct within 100 years.
Greedy capitalism is driving the cutting down of the Amazon/Congo jungles. Turning the planet into a garbage tip with no respite in view. Growth is demanded at any cost.