...just my lame assed attempt at humor that didn't go over well. Actually I died laughing at your new candlestick pattern discoveries and was trying to add to your satirical jab at the whole genre. I have the utmost sympathy for non-native speakers of English, but the simple expedient of learning how to use articles (a, an, the) would go a long way toward improving comprehensibility. Conjugation errors in irregular verbs are eminently forgiveable, but the pidgin English I was mocking drives me nuts.Best regards.
Isn't TA just visually represented quantative anlysis? I mean, you can be the guy who knows "the look" of a H&S pattern, or you can be the guy who quantifies the H&S pattern into a computer, backtests it and never knows what it looks like on a chart. Aren't they just different ways of practicing the same thing? They both looking for things that have worked in the past and that will have a better than average chance of working in the future.
a small subset of, sure. going non-visual opens many ne doors. whether one can walk thru them profitably is, of course, an entirely different matter.
No, TA has nothing to do with quant finance because there is no quantitative basis for these patterns. Scalpers, on the other hand are 'wet-ware quants', since they use autocorrelation .
"there is no quantitative basis for these patterns" There isn't? What if these guys are using a quantitative method of manually backtesting patterns they spot via eyeballing years of charts while clicking bean counters and running the stats? peace axeman
experience shows that if you show a chart from MC simulation to a chartist, he will find head-and-shoulders pattern in it.
There seems to be a societal difference between quants and tech traders. Quants are highly educated and have been innoculated against market timing by their schools. No matter how many of them screw things up and lose billions they will still be "superior" due to their education. Now technical traders are all learning on their own, basically, education level absolutely does not matter, if one of them starts making $ he/she is likely to keep a low profile. A quant, on the other hand, is trading other people's money and they will advertise the fact widely if they are making money and will make up excuses if one of them loses (another) billion or two. They will say the losing quant had "ego problems" or did "stupid" things. I love that, whole teams of PhD's doing "stupid" things. And the quant doing the stupid things will announce that he had a headache and a stubbed toe all during the time he was losing the billions so as to not ruin it for the rest of the quant industry who needs to sign up more old ladies' money in order to get a fat paycheck.
I've seen quant jobs starting at 100k/yr for someone right out of school (Ph.D. math, physics, stats, something like that).
There is a guy I work with who will soon have a Ph.D. in physics. He will argue, stamp his foot, pound the table all day "that the market is a random walk, and there is no such thing as a trend." The stupidity derives from taking results obtained from deterministic systems (the kind in books and the lab) and misapplying them.