Im not trying to improve your profitability. If I wasn't in need of material-- although the system selling guru, has provided enough for a chapter in the past--- i would put you on ignore. thanks for the fodder. surf
I'm a bit suprised no academic papers has been brought up. There are some for and some against TA. the most notable paper I read proved (through backtesting, however) that TA/PA worked well but has been declining the last couple of years. I'm convinced TA has worked to some extent, but they will ultimately break as the market gets more effective. I also believe that there are profitable ANN nets. I'm agnostic and I'm taking neither side. Most of us are losers, including most who claim to be profitable. It would be interesting if a consistent profitable trader joined up with an academic and publish a real paper.
No one attacks without provocation but you. We that use TA could care less about your fanatic "spaghetti trading/wild ass guessing" techniques. We find them comedy but we don't follow non TA threads around belittling each post that has to do with trading that is counter to TA. Anytime someone starts a TA thread you are attracted to it like a moth to a flame and start with the condescending and belittling comments. You constantly accuse others of the exact acts you instigate. I repeat, you are a liar and have zero credibility. You are only here to stir comments for your minor league blog.
Please put me on ignore and while you are at it please put all threads that relate to TA on ignore as well.
It sounds like you had the wrong mindset from the get go, you shouldn't have been a true believer in anything you werent having consistent success with. For me, when my trading started to really find it's groove, that's when I started to feel like I really had something via TA. Until then, I was skeptical at every turn.
I'm a bit suprised no academic papers has been brought up. There are some for and some against TA. the most notable paper I read proved (through backtesting, however) that TA/PA worked well but has been declining the last couple of years. I'm convinced TA has worked to some extent, but they will ultimately break as the market gets more effective. I also believe that there are profitable ANN nets. I'm agnostic and I'm taking neither side. Most of us are losers, including most who claim to be profitable. It would be interesting if a consistent profitable trader joined up with an academic and publish a real paper.
I am just curious, why do you think that TA can not work in an efficient market (whatever that is)? Did you know that when 10 ants move a leaf, they don't actually work in unison? They are pushing and pulling and the leaf moves as the summary of their forces. But not all 10 forces points in the same direction. That is the same with the market. The market moves as a summary of the market participants' acts (forces). And the term "efficient markets" has no real meaning...
Hey, nobody said anything about my BEAUTIFUL charts?? I provided 2 different examples when the market was correctly predicted IN ADVANCE (because that is what predicting means) and no takers??? I had a feeling this thread was going to be like "where is the birth certificate" nonsense. When you see it, you still don't believe it... Anyhow, I still find this thread kind of entertaining, so until that wears off, I will just enjoy it...
Sorry, Pekelo. Well done! You are a shining example of what some individuals call "impossible". Keep it up!