More like the debate goes on while the stupid who ignore the massive amounts of testing and evidence showing TA is essentially worthless. I have had plenty of statistics and thoroughly understand everything from fat tails, skewing and etc. I have an MS in computer science from a very good school, and recognize someone like yourself who talks like he is knowledgeable while in fact, has little concept of the critical issues. You have demonstrated nothing but empty prattle. You come across as someone who has read a few books and wishes to be viewed as scholarly. I can program my way around Excel better than most, and have seen enough people like yourself who are happily smug in their ignorance. In fact, I have done a huge amount of my own testing, spreadsheeting years of data across dozens of physical/financial commodities using numerous permutations of technical indicators. And it pretty much comes out the same - essentially useless. It is quite obvious you didn't bother with the site I included. Evidence to the contrary does not faze those who hold religious faith in TA... ProfLogic? Give me a break, Mr. Boolean...
Hi rcanfiel, I asked you a prior question and either you didn't see it or I didn't see your reply. With that said, I'll ask it again and your allowed to say you've recently changed your mind. ------------------- Can you explain what value technical analysis has when you recently said in another thread here at ET titled "Pro/Cons Day trading/scalping/technical analysis"... Simply, you specifically stated that a particular type of technical analysis called support/resistance probably has value back on April 30th 2007 at 9:39am est. The only way I can understand that your not in contradication is one of the following: * You've recently, between April and now, changed from s/r levels being of value to being useless. * You don't consider s/r levels to be under the umbrella of TA. * You were joking or I took your quote out of context. My last question to you (trick question), what areas of TA did you test and fail at using??? Please keep in mind that I don't use indicators. Mark
What you posted was a site breaking down some specific TA not ALL TA. You are clueless as to just exactly what is out there. Which is fine anyway because its way way over your head to begin with. Oh by the way Mr. MS in CS. I have a fully automated version of what I trade running at over 80% accuracy. Obvious your snide remarks cover up your lack of first hand knowledge regarding most of what spews out of your mouth. Let me know when the Einstein Foundation chooses to review your work . . . we'll do lunch. I'll buy . . . I can afford it.
i don't believe you. its a ridiculous statement and you know it care to share, or at the least, post the calls prior to the fact. regards, surf
Nobody said it was all TA. However, there have been plenty of academic research studies that find little basis to support TA. Perhaps you missed the recent review publication that tested about 63,000+ trading rules (including the significant TA methods), which came up as a pretty dismal treatise on TA. But I guess Professor Logic, you are about to publish a rebuttal? I know I know, you don't need proof. After all, you already told us you are a success. I offer proof, you offer claims. PROOF, Jackass. Your unsubstantiated 80% (as the previous poster noted) pretty much dismisses your trading acumen. Obviously 80% is meaningless, as anyone can do this, just average $50 on wins and -$400 on losses. It is Profit Factor, Sharpe Ratio & a host of other stats that have significance. So by all means, start your journal. Head to the main forum and start posting your daily trades with account statement or independently monitored track record, Mr. ProfLogic. Mine is already there. Otherwise, shut the F*CK up. And since you want to have lunch, come on down to Wall Street & Broadway. that is about 3 blocks from my work location. My previous work situation was a major investment bank IT shop doing Equity Derivatives & Prime Brokerage. But I am sure a major trader like you works right on Wall Street - Goldman is it? Oh wait that's right, you operate the hot dog cart down there, now I remember. Hope you have your NYC health inspection in shape. Next time, don't tip your head, all the hot sand might run to the other side.
The great part is "It doesn't matter what YOU believe! It isn't necessary post the trades so YOU will believe it either. YOU are immaterial. Just because YOU don't believe an objectively triggered non-discretionary automated trading system is a possiblility . . . doesn't make it so. Just like me saying it exists doesn't make it so. I feel no need to prove to YOU a have it . . . for obvious reasons.
I dont think the art of intelligent conversation is getting the recognition it deserve in university studies
I was just told about the bad history between several traders in this thread. Simply, the debate really isn't about TA to some folks here. Also, now that the personal attacks and name calling has started... Take care all and have a good trading day. This thread is now on my ignore list. Mark
I don't disagree. They didn't test all TA though. There are many successful traders using newer techniques to trade. But I guess Professor Logic, you are about to publish a rebuttal? I know I know, you don't need proof. After all, you already told us you are a success.[/QUOTE] Already self published and the proof is in the use. I offer proof, you offer claims. PROOF, Jackass. Your unsubstantiated 80% (as the previous poster noted) pretty much dismisses your trading acumen. Obviously 80% is meaningless, as anyone can do this, just average $50 on wins and -$400 on losses. It is Profit Factor, Sharpe Ratio & a host of other stats that have significance..[/QUOTE] I agree that any system with 80% winners COULD ultimately be a dud becuase the lossers are far bigger than the winners. The common sense dictates that in an objective system IF the direction and strength of price can be reasonably determined THEN ones stops SHOULD be extremely tight to limit ANY losses to small. Of course that assumes the person understanding the concepts possesses commom sense. One also understands at a reasonable age the correct use of the language. So by all means, start your journal. Head to the main forum and start posting your daily trades with account statement or independently monitored track record, Mr. ProfLogic. Mine is already there. Otherwise, shut the F*CK up...[/QUOTE] When I find a need to prove anything to YOU, I will let YOU know. My track record in front of real people is open to those either in attendance or their friends. Sorry you don't possess either. Nice language. And since you want to have lunch, come on down to Wall Street & Broadway. that is about 3 blocks from my work location. My previous work situation was a major investment bank IT shop doing Equity Derivatives & Prime Brokerage. But I am sure a major trader like you works right on Wall Street - Goldman is it? Oh wait that's right, you operate the hot dog cart down there, now I remember. Hope you have your NYC health inspection in shape. [/QUOTE] Sorry to hear you have to work in a cube for a living. YOU can always aspire to have something of your own someday. I'm a professional investor and work from where ever I choose. Next time, don't tip your head, all the hot sand might run to the other side. [/QUOTE] I hope you feel better now? Good luck in your "job" and great success to you.
I agree wholeheartedly. The other purpose of university studies is to cultivate intelligent conversations and to stimulate thought. How are new ideas expected to develop if one limits their focus to that which has already been found NOT to be useful or at least consistent? I teach the local agriculture producers how to better profit from their farm operations though smart use of the Futures markets. Smart hedging protects their assets and smart investments in corresponding markets associated with their operations yield greater overall profits for their operations. The same methods used in agriculture is applicable to all markets because they are all based on price movement. The problem for the universities are they are limited to individuals willing, able or capable to create "open learning" environments.