My point about methods may SOUND ridiculous in theory, but go back and read Market Wizards and tell me again how many of the people Schwager interviewed used the exact same methodology or even variants of the same methodology. I'll save you the time and just tell you the answer: Very few. From that, we can deduce that "there's more than one way to skin a cat" in the market. You'd have us all skinning cats in the exact same way, which is actually WAY more reductionist than the position anyone arguing against you is holding. Also, by the same logic you apply to "objectively programmable TA", i.e. that if such a method were discovered and made public, it would fail to remain successful, so should the same logic apply to arbitrage. It's not as if "arbitrage" is something magical that no one could figure out, unless you are talking about arbitrage in the sense of truly private information. But, even then, it's entirely possible that someone who developed an "objective programmable TA" method would also be able to retain it as private information. In the ES, there are thousands of contracts that get bought at sold at the same time I am buying and selling, almost all of which, presumably are buying and selling for reasons other than my own. How, in the midst of all that buying and selling information, would anyone be able to reverse engineer my specific algorithm and turn it from private information to public information? Yes, eventually I would reach a liquidity constraint and would impact market prices, but it's the freakin' ES. And I don't use charts, I use T&S for hourly swing trades. You want to apply one set of rules and logic to that which you think works and another set of rules and logic to that which you don't think works. That's your right, but it's also my right to point out this contradiction. It's also your right not to care if you contradict yourself and it's also mine to think that anyone who contradicts themselves hasn't really thought through the logic of their position or is being intellectually dishonest for some reason. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that last point. So, that's where I net out on this discussion.
OK, now I understand why you are incapable of testing my objective method. You aren't as bright as the average monkey.
Why would a guy who doesn't believe in TA be hanging around a trading forum, he must read value line & zacks for the real solid entrys &exits WINKWINK
Marketsurfer, I've been on these threads for over 7 years. Since the first day I got here my goal was to share my ideas about charts and markets to allow us, collectively, beat these ideas up and test them. To see what about these new environments work well and what needs improvement but all of the information was laid out and open for testing. Never once have I contradicted myself in regards to what my system is founded on and has always been founded in. I started threads to openly share my ideas and you and others like you immediately came in and attacked those ideas. You could have easily tested them for yourselves and then came back into the thread and given your opinion on your results. That would have given you some credibility. You instead chose to act like children crying and whining that someone was spoiling your playground. Many, and I do mean many individuals have taken the information I shared with them and used the information to improve on their own methods. I never said that what I do was "better" than what anyone else did. What I said was that what I was sharing could potentially improve on any method it was applied to but that assessment must be made by the individual themselves. My job was to simply share that information with them so they could see the value of the information through testing or test it and find it didn't add any value to their own personal method. Was there anything sinister about that, no but you just couldn't handle someone willing to "openly share" their work. Never once did I mention what I do outside this forum until you or others like you brought it up. You have accused me of sending PM's to people soliciting them to my old websites. These were blatant lies. You have continuously made snide remarks about my work and accomplishments making them sound less than what they were. You personally, your other personal aliases and your straw men have mercilessly stalked and harassed nearly each and every thread I've posted in over these 7 years. That is not only despicable but shows some real personality disorders. You have now enlisted your trend author buddy in your smear campaign. I, as yet, have not read his review in his new book but I know for a fact it is not an honest representation of what I do or have shared because and despite of numerous requests to him to personally test what I do or to talk to me personally he has chosen to make his assessment on his opinion alone. I'm putting you and your buddy on notice that I have venture capital funding for my software that I've been developing and for my web application. I have one of the largest private software programming companies under contract building both applications. I recently signed a contract with one of the nation's most respected forensic economists to extensively test the software for their unbiased results. This all being said, when this is all said and done your best case scenario is that you are going to be covered in rotten eggs, your worst case scenario is going to be your worst nightmare. This is not a threat this is a promise and only you can stop this nonsense now!
The problem we're having in this debate is you're referring to professional traders who handle/manage large positions; I'm referring to small retail day traders (which is what I am). I trade small size and so I use technical price action patterns to spot the footprints of what the "big boys" are doing. I want to grab their coattails and ride along. By doing this, I can produce daily consistent profits. Since this is how I generate my income, I consider it far more than a hobby, but because I'm an individual retail day trader, TA is all I need to ride along with the majority of traders who move price directionally. When I discuss TA, I'm referring strictly to technical price action. I no longer use indicators of any kind. I, too, built my current methodology spending 95% of my time in Excel, referencing charts to easily "see" setups and to find the price levels at which trades are triggered, setups become invalid, and minimum profit targets are likely to be reached. You may have already addressed this here, but I haven't followed the whole thread: What is your core methodology and time frame? Day trading or swing trading? And does your "edge" come from fundamental analysis, order flow, secret indicators, or sheer leverage (meaning you don't have to have a directional edge because your monetary resources allow you to average down until price eventually goes your way)?
I'm only concerned with the "logic" of price and time. How that plays out visually is not a part of my decision-making at all. The day I realized that there actually was some logic to the market's fluctuations was shocking and actually was spurred by a series of bad trades that failed in a highly-specific way and got me to thinking. The nature of that logic was even more shocking, since it required that I start from what I'm confident WON'T happen (show me a chart and I can tell you with about 85% accuracy what price it won't reach. If I could sell naked options in as much quantity as I want, I'd already be the richest man in the world a hundred times over) and build toward exploiting what MIGHT happen. Every trading book I've ever read orients you toward building for what might happen without consideration of what probably won't happen because "what won't happen" to the casual observer, seems like an infinitely broad topic, but, actually, under specific conditions, it's something that can be narrowed down, whereas outside of those conditions, I haven't a fucking clue, pardon my French, nor do I claim one, other than to say that outside of those conditions, you just need to wait for the conditions to emerge because they will. Nor do you see "what doesn't happen" on a chart, so why would you look for it or even consider it? A complete 180 turn was required to get over that hump. I had been studying the markets for quite a while and nothing really prepared me for what I eventually found. Will it last? I don't know, but I do think that for it to become obsolete, human nature would have to change.
Sometimes I sincerely regret having OCD, as it forces me to read these threads to the end... I nominate it as one of the most worthless on this board...