Technical Analysis Doesn't Work

Discussion in 'Technical Analysis' started by rcanfiel, Jul 16, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I'm sorry, Jack, did I wake you?
     
    #561     Aug 14, 2007
  2. hey...no ripping on my fave place! ya gotta save where you can....

    tad's is great for adding meat to one's bones. how do you think I developed this girth? eat there all the time .... just ask the winner of the lunch with marketsurfer auction.
    surf:D from treo somewhere west of eden.......& 2 far south of my love.....even when novacained
     
    #562     Aug 14, 2007
  3. Here is one example--- a colleague was kind enough to forward this study---thanks

    Volume appears to be a primary tenet of TA. However studies indicate that there is NO correlation between volume and large price moves, although TA practioners lean on this old market myth.

    http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/workingpapers/04-02-006.pdf


    so much for "constant volume bars" and other mystical works.

    continue to believe the comforting myth or face reality. your choice.


    any questions??


    regards,

    surf
     
    #563     Aug 14, 2007
  4. Marketsurfer runs evhedge.com.
    And evhedge.com is the email adress of hedgeinvestor.
    So who do you think hedgeinvestor is?
     
    #564     Aug 14, 2007
  5. Your colleague should do some some studie work. I use TA and i don't care about volume as volume has no importance to me except for the fact that i need volume to be able to trade.
    Some use volume, some don't. Volume is not essential to TA.
    Is the TA you are talking about from before Worldwar 1 or from after that war?
     
    #565     Aug 14, 2007
  6. I trade 100% technical (no fundamentals) and have zero volume component.

    Wrong again.
     
    #566     Aug 14, 2007
  7. ok, good to know. im speaking directly of classical TA, many TA books i have read, the words of multiple TA aficionados ( whom i have had the pleasure of knowing and having friendships with a few), and more recently spydertrader, and the proflogic types who appear to rely on volume in some form or another.

    look for edge, guys, edge!

    surf
     
    #567     Aug 14, 2007
  8. Quote from jack hershey:

    Surfer is bent spindled and mutilated as far as we can see. So is thunderdog and ranfiel and so on down the line.

    Read my OP. Nothing from that OP to this point has overturned the original tenet.

    There have been insults, doubts about psychological stability, and a number of things that fit right down the line about my original assertion of what people would put forward (see list in OP).

    The funniest thing has been a handful of posts that pick away at studies and dismiss them, without any reason to dismiss them other than an occasional spelling mistake, or whining about the preconditions, appendices and conditions of the studies or anecdotal stories about why they think studies do not matter. It is thoroughly obvious most of those folks have little idea about what goes into published research.

    Still, nothing solid has been put forward to disprove the original assertion.

    QED: TA still does not work. And again as originally stated, this thread made very clear that pure price action was not included in this thread.
     
    #568     Aug 14, 2007
  9. Either you have an inability to grasp the obvious, or you intentionally excluded my post from your analysis. Either way, it makes no difference to me.

    I need to head over to the bank now and withdraw some 'fervent belief.' :D

    - Spydertrader
     
    #569     Aug 14, 2007

  10. My lucky day.

    Anyone can answer these questions.

    1. What is the title of the book that profiles the research and business activity principal of the paper above cited?

    2. What is the name of the author?

    3. How recently did I mention this author and to whom was I addressing the comment?

    4. On what page of the book does the quoted conversation of this principal reveal that hes has just found out a bout bid and ask and ticks and spread? If you got the above questions right you can open the book to page 197 and read this humor.

    The team that worked for the principal in the corporation that the book is named for and where the corporation was under contract to one of the donnors to the research for the above cited paper, had two members quit. they were the first to quit.

    5. What did they discover that blew their minds with eagerness?

    6. Who, upon returning to Sante Fe, rejected their idea?

    7. What did these guys give up as a consequence?

    8. How long did they make this sacrifice before they quit?

    Now what if????

    What if the principal ever recognizes where he refused to accept reason?

    What if he goes to the logical conclusions the guys who quit had discovered?

    Last question.

    9. Would he throw this working paper into the shit can?

    Surf you are totally screwed in your thinking. He asks "any questions?" What a funny situation to get trapped by.
     
    #570     Aug 14, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.