I agree completely. The claims in the past that people could make decent profits using random entries/exits but good money management/position sizing I consider as unfounded and unproven. Of course, I would only accept on instruments that don't have a natural upward bouyancy, like the stock markets. Even the sightless can leverage the S&P 500 long and make money until they blow up.
That is fine, being an @sshole is it's own reward I get the feeling that some really big money guys do everything they can to mislead the little guys. And I suspect that very many of them will not be big money guys in the long run. You can do 100 account simulations of a random strategy and the best account will be doing great and the worst account will start off losing money and never look back. I suspect that many of the big opinion, big money guys are going to find they are random eventually.. Personally, I'm not concerned much with money management, looking at a screen, 99.99% of TA, attacks on Jack Hershey, obnoxious know-it-alls, psychology, and a lot more. I'm an engineer, engineering is VERY HARD to learn, especially if you want to be very thorough in the learning process. I got used to doing very hard things and I got used to the satisfaction of the elegant solution to a problem and the feeling of a job well done and I got used to standing on the shoulders of the truly great. Am I going to get much from 99.99% of posts on ET?? Obviously not, but the other .01% have enhanced my learning a bit, added a little bit here and there, yes, and I thank those posters. By and large, ET is right up there with Youtube in the area of useful info. I think it is impossible to prove that TA is impossible personally, just my gut feeling on the topic.
Could you post your trades from the 2002 trading contest that you lost 26% in before you made excuses and withdrew early We could all use the laugh
Quote from NihabaAshi: I'm curious why you only want someone's system code or want them to use an independent verification system and not any other proof that the system has merits. Don't want anyone's code. I want independent testing because I have found that most systems offered are either those that: -----USED to work (gee, I was the champion of the 1993 XXX World Trading Championship!!!) -----Results of the best pick from large numbers of backtests -----Have a short history, and tend to stop working when the market geometry shifts. -----A sheer liar who sells systems that don't work (they often generate fake testimonials nad track records on their site). They are usually nebulous when contronted for factual evidence. -----Are sales of some combo of TA indicators that have little chance of longterm success. -----Are in top 10 list at some tracking website (such as timertrac), but only due to sheer probability, and they tend to stop working. Last year's top10 rarely looks the same 2 years later. -----A miscellaneous potpourri of other situations. Simply, what's up with the blanket statement that Technical Analysis Doesn't Work??? Why didn't you fine tune it to what your actually talking about like any of the following... I have mentioned this in several intervening posts. Then if that's the case, you said 1% of the stuff you've tested had an edge. Can you clarify what that statement means? It makes consistent profits In addition, does your own system designs have an edge and is it based upon anything involving TA??? I do not comment on the exact nature of what I use. Also, as a reminder to most here, the stuff that you use that works for you is not the stuff that rcanfiel is pointing his finger at. The stuff he's pointing his finger at is the typical junk that many charting programs have canned in their programs. It's also the repackaged programs sold by vendors (ex. wizetrade). You know, the TA stuff that some of the newbie retail traders are attracted too and not the TA stuff used by institutions nor attracted to what most profitable traders are using because the TA stuff used by profitable traders has other inputs involved or is just too darn boring. There is much value in this statement. Start a thread about CCI indicator and in no time its one of the most popular threads here at ET going easily +20 pages of info. CCI tests poorly Simply, rcanfiel will most likely never get his proof because most profitable traders using TA do not trade the way he dislikes. I have seen considerable proof that usually shines poorly on TA and many different permutations on classic TA. It is usually disappointing. Some traders who claim success are not really. Some are successful short-term, where luck can play a large role. Some traders mix different methods and often credit something that really was not part of the success. Some traders are downright brilliant. The claim is that 95% of leveraged traders lose money. But it is much worse. Of the 5%, many of those are breakeven to hobby traders (small profits). I would say a fraction of 1% are really profitable. And the information I have seen indicates that MOST of those really profitable traders are affiliated with the industry (marketmakers, investment banks, etc.). It is REALLY infrequent to to find a very profitable trader from home. People like Jack H. talk a lot, but there is a lot of reason to doubt the claims or words from many of the ET posters. What he really dislikes about TA is its presentation by some vendors that promote TA that's all you need to be profitable. True In addition, I really can't imagine someone revealing a pure coded TA system that's profitable and can endure your statistical examination without any other inputs to help it be profitable. That is their choice. Many people don't want it tested, because it would not do well under the lights. People who try to sell their TA systems on collective2, timertrac, etc. often fall flat on thier face. "PaySense" appears to be one of those. rcanfiel, have you noticed that none of the traders from the P/L thread have posted in this thread??? Don't read it. Are you aware that a few traders in this thread post profitable P/L statements elsewhere (not at ET) and uses TA heavily??? That linkage remains unknown to me. ...
there are an assortment of statistical tests that can be applied to time/price series data to indicate trending behavior, which catching is the goal of TA. these tests indicate results no better than random. the TA guys go as far as to say stats can't be applied to TA/markets since the results are not what they wish. well, statements like this are clearly the realm of blind belief/religion using spurious info/ personal experience data as evidence. unfortunately, this is what TA has become to many--- regards, surf
Not necessarily. These two people may have entirely objective yet different strategies. Not all objective approaches necessarily read each data set in exactly the same way. A true test of subjectivity is if you showed the same data set at different times to the same person and he then drew different conclusions with that same data set. Further, it may be helpful to put a finer point on the term "conclusion." Specifically, I refer to entry and/or exit points.
Your observation is quite astute. Unfortunately, however, that doesn't make rcanfiel any less of an attention-seeking, bloated-ego asshole. And who are we to deny him the attention candy that he craves?
rcanfield is talking about pure TA and makes perfect sense, your comments are out of line. ahsi is talking about some kind of hybrid system. there is a huge difference. surf
Well, ya, a guy got a nobel prize for proving that price cannot predict price... I can't recall his name offhand actually, if somebody can supply same I would like to read his papers...