How can you say TA doesn't work. I have a question for "The Expert" What do you do for a living and what does your track record look like trading fundamentals
When he says TA, he's referring to the regular text-book style of TA, not TA per se. In fairness, the lack of distinction with regard to this definition on this thread, has been the source of a great deal of unnecessary conflict.
anticipating and identifying what are likely to be genuine and what are likely to be false break outs, before the fact, naturally. Would all of you lovely people be so good as to offer some thoughts and insights. Volume, price action, institutional manipulation, stop hunters, whatever...
In fairness, it's the OP's lack of distinction with regard to this definition on this thread that has been the primary source of all the unnecessary conflict & his foul mouth attitude hasn't helped much either.
Absolutely. I was thinking this after about the 1st page of the thread, lol. Everything he's spoken about is classic TA in mine and, from what I can gather, most peoples opinions. Maybe the title should be 'if you want to fail as a trader, study indicators'
It's the same old argument as disgruntled traders that lost money banking on an indicator/s suggest that TA doesn't work. An indicator's job is to point to how weak or strong price action is. Price action suggests direction, not an indicator. When used in tandem & wisely they compliment each other. But it is money management strategies that make or brake any method be it based on TA or FA.