MS is saying that there are many successful TA systems. MS points out that anyone can go and get one and run it and make money. He gave the general address of the systems that have been made available as "black boxes". There is a minor caveat. The black boxes may not work for a given person for reasons atributable to the user or his execution platform. There are many other ways that MS has proven that TA works. He has also proven that he cannot operate many of the TA tools. He was a member of a TA based oraganization that has continued to grow since it's inception. Of the many people MS knows who use TA in their operations, MS has not been able to grasp what they do as yet. Finally MS has not as yet grasped how any trading systems may be tested. Especially those that do not use probabilities nor those that do not rely on risk oriented considerations, protections and valuations. He has spoken about the one key principle of trading that deals with the present conditions and how the present relates to the unfolding of time. He, unfortunately, does not see or understand what or how these two specific matters are connected via TA. Were he to grasp this relationship, he then could see what and how TA affords any potential trader a tool that is extremely valuable for producing results. Results he has never been witness to except on rare occasions when someone at their personal expense was trying to open his mind to such considerations. There is a point which many many people reach where they become irreversably "fixed" and cannot ant longer continue to rationally consider the fact that may be placed upon the table. this crossing on a line that cannot be retraced is not anything for anyone to worry about in any way. It is just a matter of fact in it's occurance and the fact that it is irreversable. The conventional othodoxy creates three catalysts for this developing and difficult circumstance. They are measurable and a direct consequence of failure. They are: fear, anxiety and anger. For many people the ball game is over at a certain point in their lives. This is a natural consequence of human nature to step in and affect a "survival" impetus in the given person. It begins psychologically and becomes both psychological and physiological. Luckily the universities are begining to deal with these things both financially and in terms of human behavior and health. The fields now have academic names that provide for delineation. It is now notable in the research AND teaching in these fields that different kinds of mathematics find places in the work being done, both probabilistic and non probabilistic. It is very possible to examine and deal with how people who are prevented from continuing as traders come to get to those consequencial places where they cannot mentally or physically return to their former occupations and activities. On one hand, the literature abounds with successes of wizards and now behavior finance is introducing the other side of the coin. ET is providing oral (written records in their typed words) histories, par excellence, of people going through the transitions from their assessor beginnings to ultimate failure. It is also providing oral histories of what it takes to succeed in many many ways, TA usage included. The standard is swinging from conventional performance to unconventional performances that relate to the potential that the market offers. There is no doubt that optimum trading is counter intuitive as demonstrated by the performance records. One outstanding set of records is the in ability of people to backtest what is possible. This failure simply parallels the person's inabilitlies to any longer grasp the way markets and trading tools applied to markets works. It is not anything to care about. That is just the way the consequences of trading the markets and having repeated failure works. People get to demonstrate these consequences in many many different ways. Being angered by successful traders is a common display in oral (typing words to make expressions) commentary. Often the expression is one that "shoots the messenger" who is allowing the person who crossed the line to understand that the event has transpired, unfortunately. Don't cross the line is the message for some; for others it is just a recognition of consequences of beliefs becoming behavior. TA does not work if you have crossed the line. It is nothing to care about one way or another. TA works for farmers who are managing their production and becoming more operational. For them it is a pragmatic tool that works for farming. They seek and obtain professional support services and tooling. I occasionally use the Butler building Lear jet on application of capital matters and it is very common for clients to have commodities "insurance" that has been provided by people in that financial industry field. TA is part of that. See PL commentary for a collateral viewpoint.
Which proves what exactly? The proof requested was your self claims that you were a successful trader ("80%" and "not needing to work") and your snubbing proofs against TA. What came back was an unwillingness to journal your trades or provide solid evidence why TA DOES work, even in spite of all evidence to the contrary. I have no interest in your inheritances or ancestor's potential wealth or possessions. I am not interested in your hobbies or IQ. This proves nothing. Nor do I have interest in locker-room comparisons of manhood. You know precisely what the proofs were, and you continue to avoid them Again, you still have no clue what is going on.
The problem with TA is that most of what passes for TA is bullshit. That tends to muddy the waters. For example, there is field in mainstream medicine, biogerontology, that studies the aging process with a view to understand it better and potentially mitigate it, slow it down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerontology However, there is no lack of charlatans trying to get shade under the umbrella of respectability selling fountain-of-youth elixirs of one kind or another, some of them even being physicians or so-called "men of science." And so, those waters are somewhat muddied to an unsuspecting mark. Not that I am comparing legitimate TA with a branch of mainstream medicine by any stretch, however, both areas are being diluted by salesmen. An outside observer must be particularly diligent. To the extent that past price behavior is being used in any way as decision criteria for putting on a trade, it touches on TA. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous or naive people will include fanciful notions of astrology or space-aged, spaced-out indicators in the TA "toolkit." Some of it may have a basis in logic and may or may not have application in a legitimate, overall trading strategy. However, most of it stems from books or seminars designed to make money for the authors, not unlike the youth elixirs.
I like this discussion but PLEASE stop quoting Wikipedia. I have decided to stop doing that as well. That site is created by people posting info and having the freedom to edit it and change it. What if idiots are posting or making bad assumptions or have a bias on a subject. They are no more reliable then using ET posts to validate a position. Here is from Wiki site: Wikipedia (IPA: /ˌwikiˈpi¢°di.ə/ or /ˌwɪkiˈpi¢°di.ə/) is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. With rare exceptions, its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. The name Wikipedia is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative website) and encyclopedia. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites on the Internet. Because Wikipedia is an ongoing work to which in principle anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in some very important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles may still contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this in order to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation which has been recently added and not yet removed. (See Researching with Wikipedia for more details.) However, unlike a paper reference source, Wikipedia can be constantly updated, with articles on topical events being created or updated within minutes or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias.
optioncoach - Michael Scott would disagree with you about the accuracy of Wikipedia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRlXZ5W8lTs
My proof is in account statements that run the automated program but it is obvious you can't afford to put up the necessary capitol to cover your mouth. This being the case my discussing this with you has ceased. My art I collect are items I have acquired not an inheritance. I'm self made and extremely comfortable, cubist.
I disagree that the average ET post is equally reliable as the average Wiki article. Wiki tends to be self moderating and article vandalism is dealt with. Contrast that to ET where raving lunatics go on for years without ever being put in check as long as they arent obscene. Bottom line, I see nothing wrong with using Wiki as a cite as long everyone is clear about how authoritative it is (or isnt as the case may be).
Not talking about vandalism, just that any person can post and edit and it could be someone with misinformation or a biased view they insert in.
Your proof? your art? your professional trading prowess? The only proof you have offered is your own testimony. You reject journaling, have no offered account statements, you reject putting up evidence supporting against the overwhelming uselessness of TA, so the summation of your posts remains vacuous. And being a "cubist" I happen to enjoy. You act as if it is somehow a horrid thing to do an honest day's work. Well, I suspect the 90% of the people plus who do so would think you a strange puppy. And I HOPE you are done the conversation. But I suspect you will find some other self-testifying brags to cause agony and sully this thread. It remains evident that you cannot support your earlier arguments, so you prefer a stream of unrelated distractions. But if I see your hot dog cart down there, wave, and I will stop by for your offer of lunch. Ketchup & onions, please.