Technical analysis :useless junk science

Discussion in 'Technical Analysis' started by oilfxpro, Sep 1, 2012.

  1. Butterball

    Butterball

    Of course they do, because saying otherwise you'd be implying markets were fully efficient. In that case any type of non-indexed investing and trading would be an exercise in futility.
     
    #41     Sep 1, 2012
  2. THREE TECHNICAL INDICATORS WORKING IN UNISON:

    YESTERDAY:


    STOCK DAY TRADING RECORD

    QUE:49 stocks

    TRADING TIME 9:30 to 11:30

    DATE BUY SHORT
    WINRATE WINRATE
    8-31 100% 94%

    SYMB BUY SHORT
    ADBE w
    AEP w
    AET
    ASML w
    AU f1
    BA w
    BAX w
    BHI
    BP w
    CAT w
    COP
    D w w
    DTV w
    EMR w
    ETN w
    EWY w
    EWZ
    FAS w
    GDX w
    HES w
    HON w
    ITW w
    IWM w
    JNJ
    MOS
    NEM w
    NSC w
    NUE
    NVS w
    PCAR w
    POT w
    PRU
    QCOM w
    QLD w
    SNDK
    SO w
    SSO w
    STT w
    TGT
    TNA w
    TRV
    UNH
    UPRO w
    UPS
    WLT w
    XLE w
    XOP w
    XRT w w
    YUM w
     
    #42     Sep 1, 2012
  3. DIDN'T PRINT CORRECTLY. SHORTS SHOWN TOO CLOSE TO BUYS.
    EVERYTHING ELSE IS CORRECT.
     
    #43     Sep 1, 2012
  4. Lol, the old it has to be complicated to be good theory....
     
    #44     Sep 1, 2012
  5. BSAM

    BSAM

    Technical analysis :useless junk science

    One man's trash is another man's treasure.
     
    #45     Sep 1, 2012
  6. I don't see systems being reverse engineered correctly. The possibilities are so broad that the human mind is going to take something very simple and make it 50x more complicated.

    That's simply an opinion though.
     
    #46     Sep 1, 2012
  7. How about theses geniuses not using historical t/a . and devising profitable systems based on future price action?.The price action behaviour of markets repeats itself , over and over again , supply and demand repeats itself over and over again. so geniuses must be able to devise systems based solely on price behaviour in the future.

    Historic T/a is for xpurts and losers who hang around forums.Futuristic p/a systems are for profitable traders , and they do not need historical p/a .
     
    #47     Sep 1, 2012
  8. d08

    d08

    TA by definition means using historical data. How can you know if something works without testing it? Would they just start trading without any idea if it works, they sit down without ever interacting with historical data and magically are profitable?
    I guess I'm just a profitable loser who hangs out in the forums then, I'm fine with that.
     
    #48     Sep 1, 2012
  9. Backtesting is useful for devising a system , but any automated system which uses historic t/a is less likely to be profitable , compared to a futuristic system based on future p/a.

    Example:futuristic system if price falls , sell on a retracement (stochatic will have fallen and 4 hour will be moving down) .Historic system :price has fallen , stochastic is x crossover , DAILY/4 hour bars are down .....this is all relying on past information and often too late to be profitable.
     
    #49     Sep 1, 2012
  10. d08

    d08

    Both are relying on past data to determine entry in your example. Just because the the "technical analysis" has been used and abused by snake oil salesmen does not mean it doesn't work.
    You can call it "Megawave Futuristic Price Action Hypertrading", that's just another interpretation of the same old detested TA.
     
    #50     Sep 1, 2012