I just finished reading "evidence based TA" by Aronson, HOLY SH*T...what a downer. I already read most of that one long post about this subject. near the end of the book, he mentions that his study is actually quite limited due to the fact that he only tested one variable at a time. In the opinion of the expert traders out there would his results have been different had he employed a more inclusive algorithm?? also, if not TA what else would short term traders use?? both of Niedderhoffer's books slam TA as voodoo as well. I am just getting started in this business. should I not be devoting as much time to learning this stuff??
This book is about testing methodology not finding trading strategies that work. You may be too "new" to appreciate the real value of this book.
you may be too unintelligent to understand my question. I'll bet you didn't even read the book with a response that stupid. admit it, you didn't even read the book...did you?? it's ok, come clean. the book was all about applying good scientific analysis to TA to determine what is effective and can be proven and what cannot. Aronson's whole point is that you must apply objective analysis and eliminate data biases from your research or else TA will fall the way of phrenology and other pseudoscience. you obviously have not examined the material carefully or simply do not possess the IQ points to grasp it. whether or not I am new to trading (no need for quotes on that you moron) is not the issue.
:::Sigh::: I've reread my post again and can see that it might offend sensitive souls. I apologise for that though your brutish, clubbing response arguably demands something different... I'll add nothing else other than to say that if you reread the whole thread the answer to your answer question can be inferred from there. Indeed, you answer it yourself,adding a little meat (mixed with meaningless vitriole) to the bones of my very brief outline.
you are an idiot and you obviously haven't read the book. or at the very least read it and didn't get it.
Somehow you have to choose the approach you are the most comfortable with. It is easier to get non-realistic expectations with non-tested strategies. But it does not mean you cannot succeed that way. http://traderfeed.blogspot.com/2006/10/can-there-be-objective-basis-for.html
I didn't read the book, but you just said that all but one variables were held constant in his experiments. This is not a minor wrinkle to his analysis, this can render his conclusions completely irrelevant. Let's put it this way, is he at the leading edge of understanding the market? Probably not. Can be understand the complexity of what the variables really reflect? Probably not. Can he say TA is useless? Probably not.