Man, you are grasping at straws-- i don't have time to dissect each paper that you list -- so let's look at the Andrew Lo paper-- the most widely quoted in defense of TA- His conclusion in the paper is that ta MAY have an advantage-- there is no conclusion that TA works-- But his son plays a mean game of Chess-- i saw him play a grandmaster at Niederhoffer's house at around 7 years old and he did amazingly well! the other papers are equally hedged or have a variety of data set issues and flawed methodology--- I am done on this thread--- good luck to everyone!!
Avramov et. al. is the only paper cited that isn't 20- 30 [!!] years out of date, and its deficiencies have already been discussed. Lo, and Lo & MacKinlay, are both from the 1980s. Lo, Mamaysky & Wang use data through 1996. Brock et. al. use data through 1986.
There are tools and there are methods, nobody will publicise a consistently profitable method. N O B O D Y!
But fund managers have track records, and I'm still waiting for the name of a large, successful fund that trades based solely on discretionary chart analysis. The only candidate put forward so far is a manager who retired 20 years ago, and now dabbles with his personal account. Not very encouraging.
Soooo.... you're waiting for some successful trader to come out and say.... "for all of you dummies* who can't or haven't figured it out for yourself, here's how you do it" ?? Wouldn't hold your breath. *"dummies" is a little strong. Maybe "wannabe's" is more appropriate. If you never figure it out perhaps you're a dummy, but not necessarily because you haven't done so "yet". Problems/puzzles take a "while" to come up with a solution.
Anyway, please read my post again. I'm asking for the name of a successful fund manager, not what his "secret sauce" is. A manager's general style of trading -- say, chart reading -- is disclosed in his offering documents, marketing materials, etc. Not a secret.
Have you read any of Edwards and Magee or Elliott's work from the first half of the 20th century? None of the concepts you mention are new with Brooks and they have indeed changed drastically at the 5 and < 5 minute timeframes since the HFT takeover of the markets circa 2008. Also, none of Brooks' concepts are about the current behavior at any hard right edge other than the close of 5 minute bars, the close of 5 minute bars in-and-of-itself shows no high correlation with anything useful for day traders, it's looking at the past to make a prediction on the future or usually just looking at the past to offer analysis. If the probability skew is only 60-40 percent at best it's quite possible algorithmic trading could make extinct such traders as the market evolves during their lifespan and they repeat past heuristics that no longer work as they did and unfold at a much faster speed than in the past. Brooks was saying the ES was overbought and due for a pullback since first reaching the 1600-1800 price area.
No. The original trading plan I developed based on concepts I learned from reading Brooks, has produced consistently profitable results from 2010 until the present. I don't base anything I do on the close of 5-min bars. I have no idea how the close of a 5-min bar would help me with anything other than calculating the size of the body of a price bar, which happens to be the difference between the close and open (or open and close). The actually closing price of a 5-min bar is meaningless to my intraday trading. I'm a day trader who uses a 5-min chart for context and signals, and sometimes cross references a 1-min chart for entries and exits. There were shallow pullbacks during the ES 1600-1800 area, but on a daily/weekly basis the ES was in a strong uptrend and overbought means nothing in a strong trend. Brooks' book that I got so much benefit from is about intraday trading. If ES was overbought intraday at 1600 and a valid reversal signal occurred, I'd be short, and I'd be flat at the end of the day. What Brooks' thinks is "due" in the longer term is irrelevant to my trading.