wow, surely this must be some kind of prank post. disdain for academics because academic studies and most traders experience indicate that TA is nebulous and a subjective art form of dubious value?? surely you must be joking--- the TA true believers have a disdain for anything that disproves their religion---not the other way around as you state. Ever wonder why Don Bright, who overseas 100's if not 1000's of day traders and has a vested interest in keeping them happy/succesful doesn't push TA, but rather a multitude of other strategies designed to provide real edges?? it really looks easy on a chart, after the move, doesn't it?? seriously,man, you either accept 100's of studies OR continue to live in a delusion and learn the hardway. one way or another, you will learn. why would i admit that im wrong with all the evidence on the side of the failure of TA to be of objective value and nothing on your side other than anecdotal tales, hero worship, hearsay, and survivorship biases? am i to admit that the MAJORITY of rigorous studies of every type of TA showing its dubious nature are wrong, and accept the evidence that you put forth?? you have gotta be kidding me! regards, surf
interesting post, paul, however wrong. how do you reach the conclusion that i choose spelling and grammer over logic?? i concur about that which you support---- best wishes, surf
Some are, and some aren't. It is not nearly as clear cut or uniform as you present it. If you really believe what you wrote, then your comment strongly suggests that you are not an academic yourself, but only in awe of those whom you regard as being such. Further, to readily accept the conclusions of studies about whose structure/parameters/criteria you almost certainly know nothing about in any specific and meaningful detail only causes a reader to believe that you are an academic groupie rather than a scholar yourself. Marketsurfer, does that sound familiar? Very few legitimate academics readily tout the results of a study before carefully assessing its validity, reliability and accuracy. So don't get too lofty just because you happened to have read a few abstracts. (And if I had to guess, I'd say that you probably just read someone else's summary of those abstracts rather than the abstracts themselves.)
Quote from rcanfiel: ...Published studies are the results of a lot of work, serious inquiries and exhaustive examination and significant review by other organizations to prove their validity... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ rcanfiel this is exactly why I despise you.. read your own English and the sentiment therein.. you explain an issue threefold... your not educated. and you dont see it do you?.. Please understand before you get it so badly wrong later.. your looking pathetic
Tdog, the issue is we are not talking about one study,one researcher, one tested TA idea. there are 100's of academic studies, 10000's of traders poor results, every permutation of TA tested, and simple objective logic that clearly indicate that TA is far from the science the true believers and, of course, the market infrastructure want one to believe. as far as being an academic groupie---- well, i have some groupies who are academics..... surfer in NYC party central this weekend
Great post, TD, but it won't register with him. He thinks he can play the peer-review card even when faced with specific evidence that the TA study methodology is flawed. It's like a prosecutor trying to defend a guilty verdict even when later DNA testing shows that an innocent person was convicted. Hopeless. For those who care about the truth, here's the only passage concerning trade size in the last paper rcanfiel trumpeted: "... aside from the initial margins, no cash payment is made at the time the position is opened. Initial margin is deposited but this a good faith deposit that is returned to the trade redeemed to the trader (along with accrued interests and marking-tomarket profits or losses rather than an investment." The only conclusion I can draw is that these "scientists" were all-in, all-out in their trading. Anyone here who has ever done any backtesting knows how that can affect your results vis-Ã -vis a more reasonable trade size. Nuff said.
BTW, this paper was not proofread. In the above passage alone, you can see a missing word ("is") and a missing right parenthesis. And in the abstract, they misspell "complement" as "compliment". Publish or perish, indeed