Hi all, I'm new to this forum and this thread, so thanks for having me here! I haven't read (nor will I read) all 108 pages of this thread, but would like to weigh in. rcanfiel, first of all, I would ask why you started this debate in the first place? I'm amazed at why so many people consistently feel the need to disprove things that they themselves have nothing to do with. If you were a TA user, then I would understand. But why point fingers when it doesn't affect you? In my experience, this is what people do when they feel insecure about their own methods or themselves--after all, if you're content with your own methods, by the definition of contentment, you wouldn't even consider attacking other methods. But maybe that's not true--just an observation. Secondly, when you talk about large sample sizes and statisticians, it makes me think you're talking about a rigid science. Perhaps you don't understand what TA really is? Nowhere should TA be defined as mechanical--to the contrary, it is often quite discretionary, and therefore no "TA logic" exists which could be tested. Sure, mechanical systems exist, and of course they will fail over a large sample size, as times and markets change. Duh. Good TA is merely an instrument that a good trader will use to his or her advantage. A good technical analyst should be able to adapt methods to fit different markets and times. Could you take a good fundamental trader's response to fundamentals, and code some "logic" on how to trade based on these responses, and give these to some statistician? If so, you'd have utter failure as well. I suggest you try real TA before you trash it, if you have not already--if you had, however, I don't think you would make the statement you did.
If we accept your lengthy definition of TA I tend to agree with you; most of it is pseudo science based on arbitrary formulae suggested by neat mathematical relations. But the "archetypal patterns" you mention are definitely of some value; the logic behind them is just common sense. regards, HH
The market is like a pinball machine. You gotta play it. Technical analysis is bunk. Face it. All the money you spent on the books and the time you spent reading them was wasted. Play the machine.
For someone who claims Professor & Logic, you are often unread and uninformed. Let us examine your many gaffes here, professor illogic they all state that no two snowflakes or ocean waves, are alike. Obviously they do. The point was that they are not "perfectly random" as per your odd language. No, snowflakes are not predominately 6-sided. O Really? According to the encyclopedia: ...snowflakes are relatively flat and have six approximately identical arms, so that the snowflake nearly has the same 6-fold dihedral symmetry as a hexagon or hexagram. This symmetry arises from the hexagonal crystal structure of ordinary ice... No, they are not similar in size, (largest recorded is about 10 inches across). Try reading before pressing the Reply key. I said "similarly sized at a certain point in a snowstorm" No, they are not relatively pure (they contain the same impurities as the moisture that created them). Ever heard of acid rain? Well there is acid snow too. Yes they are. Precipitation is a natural distillation process. Acid rain/snow is not the norm. Rainwater and snow is quite pure, on average. The process of creating ice crystals also generally forces out impurities. Yes, there are consistencies within both snowflakes and waves but that is exactly what I said. You said they are perfectly random, as if it were a great observation on your part. For the most part, they are almost perfectly similar, except that each takes on a slightly different crystalline pattern. If you concentrate on what is consistent then you can create consistent patterns. This adds nothing to your argument. You prefer to argue just for the sake of arguing. No, you prefer to think of yourself as wandering above the fray, an intellectual cloud, when in reality, you fit my previous post. There is more than one definition to the word "Trend". dictionary.com gives 6: trend /trɛnd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trend] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, ânoun 1. the general course or prevailing tendency; drift: trends in the teaching of foreign languages; the trend of events. 2. style; vogue: the new trend in women's apparel. 3. the general direction followed by a road, river, coastline, or the like. âverb (used without object) 4. to have a general tendency, as events, conditions, etc. 5. to tend to take a particular direction; extend in some direction indicated. 6. to veer or turn off in a specified direction, as a river, mountain range, etc.: The river trends toward the southeast. This did nothing to support your original assertion. You might as well have listed "trend", as spoken in 20 different languages Trends ARE directional MOVEMENTS of the market. They become aspects to those that are unable to strictly define them. If one can strictly define them then there is less need to have an expectation related to them. We as traders, do not trade trends, if we can strictly define "trend" then we trade price as it moves inside the trend of a particular market on a particular chart. You are correct as well, the markets absolutely do not care about charts, trends or even us. Here we go again. Yadada
It's obvious you do not understand what the words; exact, precise, strict or absolute means. There are over 35 different types of snowflakes: Simple Prisms Solid Columns Sheaths Scrolls on Plates Triangle Forms Hexagonal Plates Hollow Columns Cups Columns on Plates 12 Branched Stars Stellar Plates Isolated Bullets Multi-Capped Columns Skeletal Forms Radiating Dendrites Simple Stars Simple Needles Capped Bullets Twin Columns Irregulars Stellar Dendrites Needle Clusters Double Plates Arrowhead Twins Rimed Fernlike Stellar Dendrites Crossed needles Hollow Plates Crossed Plates Graupel & More (doesn't include the many more associated with man made snowflakes) Only 8 of these 35 listed forms are predominately 6 sided. And not even those 8 are ALL 6 sided. These are courtesy of CalTech. Of course rcanfiel/Smurf is far smarter than all of the specific snow researchers there or at least he and his trusty encyclopedia THINK they are. Now that I have made an idiot out of you regarding snowflakes should I proceed with ocean waves? Oh, you forgot to comment on my last paragraph as well but you obviously didn't understand what was stated there either. I'm still waiting on the one facility member still willing to speak to you after you dropped out of grad school to contact me. It's almost cruel having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
listen to the vendors rant and attempt to defend the indefensible by personal attacks, illogic,weak anecdotal evidence, bandwagon attempts, appeals to dubious authority, and the obfusication of the issue. classic, thanks for all the fodder for future writings! surf