It has nothing to do with lines, straight or otherwise, but rather with an understanding of the nature of supply and demand. As to the "principle" behind technical analysis, what might that be? And while one might argue that few have what it takes to make the leap to scientific analysis, one might also argue that many have been there done that and don't see the point, particularly when they've been analyzing for years and still can't tell the difference between up and down. As to secrecy, of course. In fact there's more secrecy cloaking the process and results of all this scientific analysis than there is the alleged cover-up of alien visitations. Yet for all those who claim to know but don't say, they sure do post a lot.
Best we trade accordingly then ==================== Reminds me of the Catholic religion (no disrespect to any Catholics); why go to an intermediary when getting right with the Big Man Go straight to the Big Man instead (reduces potential for misrepresentation / misinterpretation / inappropriate resulting action) Many situations where human language does not exist.., or understood - yet vast amounts of information exists..., is decipherable / deciphered⦠then successfully acted upon Tracking & locating - animals or humans Diagnosing & repairing - a poor/ non running motor / bad electronics/ a busted washer/ dryer Pets Raising a baby before he/ she learns to speak A bountiful garden To name a very few ==================== Price exists and is irrefutable; it provides decipherable information â that once deciphered is actionable for the purpose of consistently making money I'm good with that ============== Aside; I know indicators give off false signals / counter signals / even no signal at times â we all know that Deficiency resides not within price..., though ========= And for the record; I am not saying, or even suggesting - one can't trade successfully with/ off/ from indicators There are more ways to trade successfully than I can count RN
The same as with straight-line analysis: an attempt to understand the nature of supply and demand. Indicators are attempts to use recent prices to discern what the underlying price action currently is or soon will be. They often fail because there is little transfer of knowledge from those who've made significant discoveries to other traders. Consider how many centuries it has taken hard sciences like physics and chemistry to develop, and those were done in the full light of day. Many recently disclosed indicators weren't even possible until personal computers became commonplace and that's because they just weren't practical in the pre-PC era. And you can scoff at the secrecy but it's real and warranted in most cases. Why would I freely tell a bunch of strangers, many of whom I couldn't stomach if I met them IRL, what I've sweated blood to learn? In case you've forgotten, we aren't talking about a cooperative effort to put a man on the moon, we're talking about making money in financial markets, where there are always winners and losers. You don't expect football teams to send copies of their playbooks to their football rivals, why would you expect a TA researcher who's made a significant discovery to just post it for free on the internet? I've posted some valuable MM information here in ET and gotten very few thanks for my contributions. In fact, the responses I typically get are ridicule. So what incentive would any successful TA researcher have to share his best discoveries with a bunch of strangers largely composed of ingrates? Are they going to send him royalties if they do start making money off his idea(s)? Of course not. Trading is a competition, like it or not How would you know that? If you're referring to me, I never claimed to know, I just stated what strikes me as the logical reason why most of us aren't getting rich from TA. If your argument is that your methodology is the only one that works, I have two words: prove it.
When you post inside the quote of another poster, you make it extremely difficult to respond. Perhaps that was the point. In any event, the ACD thread is very popular. If nobody there is making money, one has to wonder what the attraction there is.
Whether or not the ACD thread is popular and whether or not anybody there is making a living with it is beside the point. Woodie's CCI used to be popular. VSA used to be popular. Joe Granville's OBV used to be popular. The ORB used to be popular. And the list goes on. There's a great deal of faith involved in indicators and patterns. If "they" say that indicators and patterns are the road to riches, then that's the course one follows. If somebody claims to be successful with them, then whatever failures one has experienced and continues to experience must be because of some fault of his own. All that matters is whether or not one is successful in the path one has chosen, and by "successful" I mean making a living, not just picking up lunch money. The claims that others make with regard to a methodology in general or their own methodology in particular are of no importance whatsoever. If they are in fact successful, fine. So what? But that doesn't mean that what they're doing is right for everyone. It may not be right for anyone. Except for them. Therefore, if one has been at this for two or three or five or ten years and success continues to elude him, I suggest that he stop looking for the right indicators and the right settings and the right combinations just because somebody somewhere claims to be successful with them and re-examine his approach to the markets in its entirety. He may find that the most direct route to success is another route entirely.
Technical Analysis Logical Flaws there are no flaws in ta its just like a reciept they hand you at the checkout, a list of what was bought, the price and tota l...it's the logic applied to it