@marketsurfer Proven truth that simple moving average crossovers don't work? fine. It seems you had some blind luck with Altucher's crap, I thought backtesting was nonsense for you? Which is it?
I know altuch(er and i know the success he had and the success of the source of the strategies so i really don't pay attention to the back testing. The strategies make ( made ) sense-- the bankruptcy one was killer.
I realize that some people have pretty strong feelings about TA... and those who disagree with them. But that's no call for personal attacks, so keep it civil and professional or you will be blocked from posting to this thread. Thanks.
NQ is at 4300. It needs to pb to 4100 before rallying to new highs. I think this is a safe place for that to happen without it bothering bulls. If it happens it will further convince me bulls are in charge because smart bears should be able to see this and thus only the weakest bears will think the pb is more than a temporary event. Smart bears would not pb here, least not for a swing trade. EDIT: It needs to pb to 4200 (not 4100). It's still at 4300.
and there you have what is really the problem with most trading systems and traders employing those strategies.
If after years of trading and research you can't figure out how to profit from TA, then you are just thick. Lose a little, win more.
You missed the point. Assuming there's nothing wrong with his methodology, his test results are bogus because the strategies he tested have no bearing on real-world trading. No real trader is always in the market like Aronson's test systems were. What Aronson did was like testing the crappiest junk food imaginable and then concluding that food in general contains little to no nutritional value.
I concur that Aronson's work is not complete and needs to be expanded-- but it provides a framework and my experience has been that even when the missing aspects are added ALL the results still show not enough of an edge to cover the vig over time--- there are dozens if not 100's of academic papers showing the same thing-- but TA believers can show what is missing in each study ( there is usually something missing) but my contention is that even with this missing element(s) the results are still not enough to cover the cost of trade. surf
The same thing will happen with random entries say based on time--- every hour you go long or short for example --- apply money management and there is no need for TA- What you are missing is I have extensive experience in this game---see the surf repor from 2002-2005--- I had an elaborate TA system based on cycles, gann and other esoteric stuff-- guess what-- I made phat profits---- Then I realized that I would have made the same profits even without the TA-- the profits were despite the TA not because of it--- this realization opened my mind to the way the market really worked-- then i started working for Larry Connors and befriended Vic Niederhoffer-- I combined what larry's studies proved with Niederhoffer ideas to create my own sauce that does not rely on past price to create a market bias--- -surf