I decided not to respond to most of the naive and truly ignorant statements made on this thread. However, the above wins the prize for the dumbest, most naive and truly idioticstatement ever made on elite trader. If TA is objective , then why when 3 technical analysts look at a chart u get 4 interpretations? TA is nothing other than subjective on every level. Only a joker would think otherwise.
Yes, i have losses. Does anyone else on this site post before the fact calls consistently? The year is not over yet -- Furthermore, no one has ever made before the fact calls since 2002.
Like I care You obviously cannot separate (your) self from the information Good.., bad..., ugly - are terms people assign..., all subjective There is only information..., it either useful..., or useless Deny / reject all you like ======================= I want the craft treated with respect I also do not want my mentor disrespected - he is dead..., and no longer able to speak for himself RN
This goes to show the stats of a superior system that doesn't implement TA. It's not aimed to discourage you from posting your trades, you are the one that suggests not to use TA on the other hand. You are into maximising your profits by entering into trades prior to price confirming the analysis, but surely another way of looking at it would be saying that by entering early you are also maximising your losses, no?
TA makes it easy to remain detached. I suppose with enough work in other areas of my life guiding principles could be found which would enable 'being' detached there also. I should know that lesson already because I've experienced it in various forms repeatedly ...the least of them being not to say anything when I don't have anything good to say. Others I can't tell you about but basically they involve stopping interacting with others the v first time it's clear they don't get what I say the 1st time I say it.
Do you mean that if a user codes or programs or automates a PA pattern...its not objective because it was done by the user personal interpretation of that pattern and that process of personal interpretation is via subjectivity because another user of the same name pattern may have coded it completely different than another coder/programmer because their personal interpretation was different. Wouldn't such also be a flaw in backtesting patterns because it originated from personal interpretation (subjective analysis) before its coded/programmed in an effort to simulate objective analysis...an effort to quantified it ??? Therefore, the trading results of lets say the "Cup and Saucer" pattern will be different from one coder to the next coder unless they use the exact same code...essentially one coder not using his own subjective analysis to design a code and has instead decided to use the code of another programmer. Simply, you're saying all PA is subjective in the beginning but if someone wanted to code it and make it objective...that's possible but be aware that another programmer may not use the same original subjectivity. Did I get that right ???
If they gained nothing else from trying to learn how to program ...those who insist on discretionary trading would at least learn enough about logic structures to improve their trading ...but many (incorrectly imo) simple don't see any need for it.