Quote from FGBS: There are loads of succesful Tech traders, check cta for their members and where they work... most published performance listings of CTAs are pathetic. Most do worse than say a 15% return for the year which is pathetic, given the use of leverage. "None of these arguments would hold much weight as compared to longterm, rigorous statistical sampling & testing of a mentioned method or indicator, over a diversity of markets and market time periods." --> This is where you prove that you completely msised the point. Patterns happen for a while, they might even last for a couple of months but they don't last forever and they definitely dont work for every product... tested with little evidence of success. WHEN they occur meams little 1) You have to be kidding... this is you being worse than your own argument 1... you do realise you are refering to a group of people that leverages at 20:1 and find it surprising they can't beat the experience of banks/hedgies/experience? And how do you explain the 5%? seems about right for guys leveraged at 20:1 this is mostly gibberish Good luck (as I also believe luck plays a prt) a surprising admission, but probably what many TA followers mistake for success, because they have 6-9 months of it and think they are onto something and I can't wait for your review of, fundamental analysis adds no value 90% of investment recoomendations from sell side analysts provide no extra predictional power over the direction of equity trading! have no issue with fundamentals
Any statistical analysis starts with a set of assumptions (what is being tested, what is excluded, how long, etc.). Your sentence is gibberish, since you do not appear to understand statistical validation.
this is mostly venting, the substance is unconvincing. People have the right to post, otherwise this would be an empty site.
A lot of good thoughts in here. Thanks for the time invested in it. It does help to focus. Yes, the main thing on TA indicators is traditional. It is impossible to test the quintillions of combinations everyone could ever think of. But the traditional ones are part of many books, advisories and other things marketed to (newer) traders, and they are worth scrutinizing. If I could edit the OP, I would add something about this. Although I do not say that this means that alternative creativities on indicators will have more or less success. That is up to each trader to decide
Since there are volumes of studies to the opposite, it is perhaps better stated that only a total moron would conclude that effective use of TA DOES increase the probability. In other words, in the absence of any proof, then TA remains a belief rather than a proven hypothesis
IQ tests are generally effective reveal people with higher intelligence QUOTIENTS. In other words, capacity. But if underused, it means little. There are plenty of people with "average" IQs who do quite well in the world and in business
Quote from optioncoach: and I overlooked the point made by the below poster. win rates are not important, it is money made v. money lost on average. A win rate of 20% might suck but not if you make 10 points per win and lose 2 points per loss. You are still net ahead. Correct, Profit Factor means a lot more to me than win/loss