Did you notice I said "proper"? TA probably can't be programmed into a money making machine any more than can card counting in black jack... yet they are similar. (And how about your "market drivers"... how do they take to being "programmed"?? I know the answer... but does that make them any less valid as a tool to try to trade with perceived probability on your side?)
I agree that price is by far more important than volume. I have it on charts but more for general considerations/context of what's happening. All actual entries/exits are purely price based.
Black jack or poker. They say poker bots exist, but still are way inferior to humans. There's a reason for that.
No. Black Jack and poker have little in common. Counting cards in black jack is all about numbers/probabilities. Poker is much about "money pressure", "false representation/bluff" and "playing the opponent".
The fact that there are profitable fully-automated shops running around already answers this question. They instructed a computer how to do it, and let me tell you computers have a very low IQ Machine-learning aside, anything taught to a computer can be taught to a human... Researching and developing such a strategy is a different skill-set than execution... Obviously there are more discretionary ways to trade which could be interpreted more along the "art" side of things. I would argue that the human advantage is the qualitative evaluation of all known data points using "reason". Anyway throw me into the "it is very teachable" camp, given the student has the correct psychological makeup. The question is more of who is / why would someone be motivated to teach? This is one of the most competitive endeavors on earth and it is every man/woman/child/machine for themselves. Why would you arm your competitors?
Of course you can teach someone to trade. Just like any other skill it takes a little training and a lot of practice. Will you become a world-class trader? Itâs doubtful. To do that requires an innate talent. Not unlike golf or poker. Taking a lesson wonât immediately help your game but applying that lesson combined with a lot of practice eventually will. You probably wonât become a top tier player but you will probably become a lot better than you were.
tl;dr thread, but what it comes down to is there are some things(many actually) which just can't be taught. People real good at "TA" are too dumb in the broad sense to actually know what they're using.
As I remember, covel is a parasite of trend following just as David Goodboy is a parasite of money broker for passive market participants. PTJ ran a firm that traded his and OPM. You are asking a science question, maybe. The systemmic operation of the market is a system that is without noise, flaws nor anomalies. This is a characteristic of a scientific system. Your question was answred long before PTJ or the people Covel interviewed and quoted. A scientific review of the operation of a market involves mathematics. The necessary indgredients include data and its processing using mathematical tools. The key limiting ingredient comes from the examination of market variables and particularly their most commonly overlooked characteristic. As OP you may want to put on ignore all posts that violate anything unscientific or not mathematically founded and expressed. Start with the granularity of the variables. for example discard each book that does not discuss granularity in chapter one. Only a minority of your posters deal with the independent variable of the market. Don't ignore those that do. You see professional trading. Its primary source of income is fees and commissions. Neither have anything to do with science or mathematics. I tught trading to students for 10 years. All made profits trading. Each of the 10 years I taught different students. All students had their math aptitude tested "before" and "after" The 100% sample was a SRS because anyone could walk through the door of my classroom. On a six sigma basis the average shift was 1. 23 sigma. The scoring was from a large sample (the largest in the world at that time). IQ changes at a rapid rate as young people grow older. A unique characteristic of my classroom was one wall. floor to ceiling in piles of 25 it was filled with corporate annual reports. secondly, it had a full broker service from S&P. All students subscribed to the WSJ. they also did daly charts of their portfolios. A list was always on the wall of every stock charted. In class I answers questions asked by the students as the classroom modus. In March they completed the long form 1040. Two texts they read and prepared personal illustrations for were: "Beat the Dealer" and "how to Kie With Statisitics". Their illustrations of mistakes were from public periodicals the WSJ and anything else they discovered and referenced in books. Every year at least one student traded real money to pay for his college education. My opinion of young people, roughly speaking, is that their religion closely approximates money as a religion. My students all felt that trading and investing is a teachable science. They also felt it had a broader base than most sciences. Once at midnight, two past students came to me with a problem. One had just inhereted the first portion of her trust (6 mil). the question was: Can I sky dive now that I am 21. I said: "conditionally, write a proof and deliver it to your grandmother and your parents. then see that they have accepted the proof". Skydiving is your decision and you have the responsibilty to prove what you do is resoned. A lot of the posts here are proofs of personal beliefs. Beliefs are just consequences of learning. I did not try to prove teaching scientific trading is possible. I just feel science and mathematics is part of everyday life. The name of the course was "Environmental Math"*. Everyone had to have a checking account. In those days 1,200 a month was spent on clothing in schools that had uniforms. * Later what was wrong out there became known as the envoronment.
But some people will lack the emotional control to do the right decision when the market looks 'scary', others will deviate from the system after large losses or a string of gains, some will not have the patience to wait for good setups. Some will learn market consistencies in 1 year, others will take 10 years to pick up the same patterns. Some will read market history and pore over price charts voraciously, others will switch off at the closing bell. Some will review their mistakes and keep a diligent trading diary to improve, others won't bother. The people in the first group will never learn, or be taught how to trade profitably and consistently.