To NihabaAshi How about being a nice guy and giving us some hints as to what types of TA indicators you use?
I don't use indicators although I have used them profitably in the past to see what all the hype was about. Simply, I am not impressed by indicators. Anything else you'll like to know...send me a pm and I'll give you some hints about what I use under the umbrella of TA. Don't want to say to much in front of those that really aren't interested. Mark
The principles of TA for predicting upcoming market movements do work, some of the times. And based on that we could make some profits, some of the times. Therefore, there would be hardly any crucial knowledge about TA, most of the times.
I can remember that some profitable (as they claimed) traders on ET mentioned they did use only one single indicator.
I didn't notice anything about an apology for saying a large number of things about me that were inaccurate. Try rereading my first response. I had a relatively high opinion of you until that note. Previously, you seemed to stay above the National Enquirer kind of reporting. I said it quite clearly, and it should be obvious why I reacted. When you dredge up a lot of stuff about someone based on half truths and poor memory, you can expect a reaction. You started it, I did not. As for: "Send me ...your ISP email address (none of that free stuff), real name, telephone number... not interested. I don't send my personal info to unknown people. You must have been on theinternet long enough to not expcet a response. I am not interested in one person's TA experience. It is like the person (forget who) who trumpeted how much PTJ depended on TA. And then I posted a lengthy interview that was done with PTJ, who never once mentioned TA as a part of his success. Then of course, this person got mad, but did not do anything that proved TA, except trying other ways to prove PJT somehow relied on TA. And again, one person claiming success does not prove TA. Only TA must have been used to have any validity, but PJT said he had a few things that went into the mix. Again, individual experiences with trading do not prove anything, but I think I have now said that 3 times in the last couple of days. They remain ancedotal, not statistitically valid. You want to prove is (saying it again), supply. I have several times supplied proofs that it doesn't work, and all that comes back from TA lovers are retorts or more anecdotal evidence. I am waiting for PROOF that would pass statistical analysis, and rigorous industry review. Otherwise, TA does not work. But as you said, this conversation is ended. We are repeating once again. Definitions that have real meaning: Statistically Significant The likelihood that a result (eg, of a clinical trial) is caused by something other than mere chance. Significance is defined by an appropriately small p value, almost always set at p<0.05. A statistically significant finding may not necessarily be clinically significant, ie, it does not have a measurable impact on patients' symptoms. Statistically Significant Something is statistically significant if it is proven to be at least 95% accurate and can be caused by a change no more than 51% of all cases Sample size: the number of members in a sample. In all cases, larger samples make for more accurate conclusions. In the case of statistical generalizations, as the sample size increases, the error margin decreases, or the confidence level increases, or both. Sample size: Sample should be as large as possible. Minimum acceptable sample size depends on the type of research. For causal-comparative, correlational research 30 in each group, and 15 in experimental research are generally recommended as minimum sample size. Anecdotal evidence An informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc