This argument is flawed. It is not mass human behavior that moves the market, its the behavior of the mass of capital. Given the fact that at any time the mass of capital in any instrument can be controlled by one individual -- what u and TA is saying is that it can increase the odds of what one individual will do in the future with the mass of capital. Someone who controls a substantial sum has a bad burger at shake shack so he dumps his shares --- tA knows this will happen? Add in the fact its not even humans who make up the majority of the market rather computers designed to game each other and the TA argument becomes even weaker. Peace surf
Not a cogent argument at all. Say you took a cookery course by a top chef. The course is titled "How to make great tasting meals" . His focus is on how to make tasty meals. If he now does not discuss the nutritional value of his meals, would you then conclude that he is a poor chef?
As an aside, VN has a lot of mumbo jumbo on his site that i personally had to call him out on, his analysis was really flawed. I don't want to discuss this here and now, but we can, if you wish, later.
Would you start base jumping after listening to a base jumping instructor who talked to you and many others, at a high cost and in great length about the technical details of the materials in your wing suit, as well as the technical minutiae regarding the weather conditions and how it will relate to the biophysics of your wingsuit? While this instructor would also never share specific details about their experiences base jumping or provide any actual evidence that they had ever actually base jumped before. Would you then, after listening to all of these technical details, start base jumping? It is logical that this instructor is actually using technical details to gain clients' undue confidence.
No. TA does not predict the future. It only looks at what has happened (which includes your big trader behaviour)...you have to infer from that in an intelligent way as to what might be reasonable to happen next. Statistical analysis doesn't predict the future either btw. P.S. Why do you keep saying Peace?
Brooks's course is to do with price action. This is why i bought it..to learn more about price action. It is not supposed to be about money management techniques (although tbf, he does touch on this).
Well, yeah, there are some "questionable" correlations on Vic's site. However, they are designed to make you think for yourself rather than be spoonfed like some kind of red light greenlight system --- which at the core what TA guru followers want.
Whilst I don't use TA I do use a simple naked chart. How do you explain how I manage to post weekly returns like this? http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/trader-pnl-2015.289576/page-7#post-4176617. I guess I got lucky. edges come in many forms Surf.
That capital is controlled by humans with human motives, or by "machines" that have been designed to operate in a way by which particular humans would benefit, i.e. according to human wants, needs, desires. Without human beings, there is no market anywhere. TA is predicated upon a freely traded, liquid market. A closely held company with a low public float or a futures contract with little widespread interest would not be a good candidate for TA. TA, for example, would not be worth very much if applied to most options contracts, and given the decaying nature of options, TA applied to the underlying might still not yield high probability options trade opportunities very often. Compare also the spot forex market for the Euro/Yen cross and compare it to the market for futures contracts of the same underlying pair. While TA can help one analyze the price action of the spot market, it would be of doubtful and dubious benefit to analyzing the futures for that currency pair. Of course not. The assumption of TA is simply that all known information about a market, security, or instrument is reflected to some degree in the current price. It does not even require that information to be widely known - just available to some of the market participants who currently have an interest in that particular security. No one ever claimed TA could predict that a fund manager would have a bad burger and dump his shares - including the fund manager himself, or he'd have avoided eating the bad burger to begin with, dump his shares, and would have saved himself from getting his stomach pumped. So long as you insist that TA practitioners believe TA predicts, rather than identifies and quantifies probabilities, or so long as you insist that financial markets are a special case to which probabilities do not apply, then you will not believe TA has any value in making decisions in the financial markets. If you believe the latter, then you ought to start making a case here, supported by evidence that can be discussed and not your simple argumentative assertions. If you believe the former, that TA practitioners believe it possesses so-called "predictive powers," I'd direct you to the following passage from Mark Douglas, which succinctly, accurately, and unambiguously to all but the prejudiced, tone-deaf, or otherwise stupid, characterizes how a TA focused trader understands what one's TA set-ups mean:
Take a look at surf report from 2002-2005-- i made $$ as aTA believer - i would argue TA works with VN -- then i understood the real reason i was making $$ and it wasn't TA. surf