One should adapt himself/herself to the system he/she is willing to trade.Not the permanent tweaking between the system and the market.Take any system you like,trade it on a SIM and record yourself,your parameters.It`s about the track record of yours,not about system.
The objective framework couldn't be applied to TA unless the TA under test was also formulated in an objective manner. I've posted this for you before - In Aronsons own words (p 450): "Perhaps the biggest deficiency of the case study was the failure to consider complex rules. This is a severe defect for several reasons. First, few TA practitioners, subjective or objective, restrict themselves to decisions based on one rule. [...]. Second, complex rules should produce superior perfomance on difficult prediction problems, such as financial markets." And again, as I've said before, Aronson fails to prove or disprove anything in his first book.
Why should complex rules produce superior performance? I do not agree with Aronson on this point. Take Jack Hershey, as an example, that seems like complex TA-- has it proven to produce superior performance? Just the first thing that poped into my head. surf
TA is a subjective and the subject is pretty well known,and was postulated by C.E.Dow century and a quarter ago in his Dow Theory. What else is there to understand?
My view is that the reasearch and development is unscientific. There is no way to begin the process engaged in since there is no foundation for beginning. No conclusions can even be attempted.
You are mistaken. If you wish, please consider how signals are invented or deduced by those who think in mathmatical terms. The name of one signal generator is MACD. Its inventor chose the name wisely. MACD generates six specific contexts. The power of MACD had an original intent as a "gating" circuit. And it is true that MACD can be used as a leading indicator of price. As it turns out some people have been able to process this consideration and others have not. Please consider giving a read to the five precepts of Behavioral Finance.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein Also, can we agree that the inability to articulate or explain something in clear, simple terms does not mean the subject matter is complex?
I agree. I think its objective. Trendline/channel confirmation is the tough one. Imo, its not described well in books. I use a pt 4 that respects either the trendline or channel line. With that, the whole channel/trendline is confirmed going forward. Even if broken, it then acts in opposite fashion (support into resistance etc).
If you are open to giving your self a chance, please give an indication. Many things eluded Dow. also it is true, many many cerators took leaps that were unfounded. A lot of people followed their lead and got to where you tell use you are stuck. No one needs to stay in such traps. Probably most people are unaware of their circumstances, situation and condition. Consider for a moment if it is possible to get legitiment answers in a number set if that set is not present in the input data. If you are able to step through from where you are and go into the proper realm, could you then pick off the shelf the tools that have long been available? The usable Algebra of the markets makes what Dow used look like an approximation of an environment. Several contributors here have feelings about what could result from work. There may be a feeling that work is required. I have a viewpoint on markets and their operation. My viewpoint is not an opinion. For me my viewpoint is a fact and this fact is like all other items considered facts. Often facts cannot speak for themselves. There is good reason. A raw fact incoming to a mind cannot speak to that mind. the mind has no basis to consider the fact. So it remains no more than a hypothesis to that mind. What is it that allows a hypothesis to become a fact in an open mind. Thinking does. I am probably the luckiest person alive. I was immersed in the unknown of the beginning of the application of electronics to thinking. All my employer asked in its foundational slogan was: THINK. My continuing task was to "problem solve" why designed mainframes did not do what they were designed to do. This was well before "real time" computing. Markets are very simple living organisms. Like the mind, they are granular. I'm sure a lot of people empathize with you and your problems. I do. It is a very sad thing for you.
Depends upon what you defined as TA and what type of TA you're talking about. We already know that most like surf have a completely different definition of TA in comparison to those that use TA to make trade decisions or trade management decisions. Therefore, some TA is objective and some TA is subjective...to others its not even TA. My opinion (the part you didn't quote) is that... Discretionary traders are "subjective" in their use of objective rules (e.g. buy Dow when it hits 16500.00 and only if such occurs as increasing volume on the hourly chart in comparison to the prior hourly interval). That's an objective price action situation. Yet, the subjectivity involves all the other stuff that can impact a trader's decision to buy or stay on the sidelines such as discipline, stress, trade management after entry and many other ingredients). My point, everybody will react different when that price action occurs and then react differently because they are discretionary traders. The human mind is powerful...traders react differently in the exact same situation. In contrast, if its automated, the buy will automatically occur no matter what is occurring with the trader subjectively assuming there's capital in the trading account. Another way to look at it, the trader is subjective and some TA is objective (e.g. see above) while other types of TA is subjective (e.g. trendlines). Is the glass half full or is it half empty ?