You make a good point about Sykes. Yes, Sykes found a pattern that when combined with a small subset of stocks ( pump and dumpers) appears to have worked quite well. But its not just the pattern. Far more important is the fact that the pattern was applied to companies with no fundamental basis for the price move. This means Tim uses a combination of FA and TA not pure TA. But most important of all, tim is often off on his timing despite being very successful with tjis small subset of stocks. Could he have done it without TA? Was his success despite TA rather than because of it? Yes. Yes, voodoo, astro, prayer, etc also appears to work for some people some of the time. Heck, arch crawford ( astrologer) has (had) the top performing newsletter for many years based on astro. Think that can be replicated?? Please see www.evidencedbasedTA.com to see why objective TA simply doesn't work and to clarify what i base my statements on. Its easier than my describing what i mean here. Unlike aronson, i think subjective TA could work For a savant or two but i have just never seen evidence of it working by itself. All i get are claims from anonymous internet posters. surf
Having hosted several open invite "surf fests", thus having met many ETers. I am certain we would get along quite well. The personas you witness on here are usually not the real life person--- however, in some cases they are.
surf, That's what I thought. Yet, here's the problem...you're debating with some folks that are not automated. You're debating with some folks that are discretionary traders (no automation trading). You're debating with some folks that uses suggestive TA. Just the same, I've seen you debate with folks that say they use TA and nothing else even though we both know they are using something else (e.g. risk management, discipline, trade experience, fundementals and so on). Oddly, I don't think I've ever seen you debate with automated traders that use TA. I've also never seen you enter The ACD Method thread of your pal Maverick to challenge their TA. It just seems like if you like the guy and if the guy uses TA...you got his back that he's a profitable trader and you're willing to prove that he's a profitable trader. I just think that its odd. By the way, I don't know of any Evidence Base TA users at ET. All the TA users I know here do not use automation or some sort'uv coding trading system. In fact, most of those I see you get into arguments about TA on a consistent bases...they're discretionary traders and they use TA with other stuff. That's why I believe your TA debates is more personal than it is about TA in reference to how you treat Sykes and Maverick.
I can't help but think that this is akin to saying that one must use TA with CONTEXT. Fundamental analysis is I think another way of saying context, be it context of the company, or context of what the stock has been doing in the past few days or hours. Wrbtrader also makes an excellent point with regards to automation. I know very little about the work involved with automation, but it seems incredibly difficult to be able to code context. So many guys here say that you need lots of screen time, years of screen time. This screen time I believe equates to subconscious development of context. When a person tries to automate context, he is relying on the fact that he is consciously aware of the decisions he is making and why, which I don't believe is the case. I happen to think that this is also why its impossible to code because the trader just isn't aware of what he is actually using. (ie. he can state the reasons for why the context here is no good, and if I found another case of this same set of variables, and yet his thinking at the time was different, it would point to the fact that the context variables were in fact incomplete) Likewise, I think trading is really difficult to teach because the teacher, in his subconscious mind, or at the very least, in his vast memory of context, just cannot in any way convey these contextual rules. They may have entry rules, but I think the traders that are at the top of their game understand very well when and where and why they break whatever entry rule they have. (ie. entry criteria is met, but context criteria is not, so no trade) (ie. Even though its a good rule to say you never chase the market if your entry isn't filled, I'm sure there are many who know exactly when and where to chase, where they cannot wait for a limit order to fill and are forced to enter via a market order, and so although this may be breaking a rule, its the understanding of context that allows for this) Therefore, coding this and using this as a way to prove TA is pointless. Traders who use TA and are losers doesn't prove anything since they may not have a good enough grasp of context (or even discipline, if they even have a trading plan of course). And traders who use TA and are winners might either not want to, or may not be fully able to, explain all their contextual rules, thereby allowing their method to actually be tested. Fortunately, the only test that really matters is a consistent PnL, but this is just something most don't share on any long term basis. The only people who have verified track records seem to be hedge fund guys or traders at big firms, but these guys trade in a completely different manner. They don't need to use TA since they are making the market (heck.. TA might not even work for them at their level)... they are the ones that are leaving the footprints of their trades within the charts for retails guys to pick up on. Well... that is how I understand it at least.
In my opinion, trading can not be taught. In contrast, traders can teach their methods. Simply, trading can only be learned on one's own. You really need to stop acting as if every time someone you meet that shares a trade signal strategy should be obligated to share everything else they do with you...some stuff just can not be shared. Not because they don't want to...its just not possible (e.g. trade experience). The only problem with coding for Evidence Based Technical Analysis (EBTA) is that its only about TA as if the trader doesn't use anything else. Context and trade experience can't be tested. Automation and mechanical trading can be tested. Seriously, how do you backtest or test the trade method of someone like Timothy Sykes...you can't. Therefore, its a complete waste of time to go to Timothy Sykes and say I want to test your use of TA to determine if its profitable when the fact is that he uses other things (more importantly) with his TA. You're very wrong about the only guys with verified track records seem to be hedge fund guys or traders at big firms. For examples, Timothy Sykes trading record was verified prior to him even becoming a vendor. Tony Oz posted here at ET many years ago his verified trading record and contact info of the audit firm...then he never returned to ET again after hearing that type of none sense by those like you. Paul Rotter had a verified trading record prior to becoming a fund manager. The Japanese trader CIS has a verified trading record but the problem his him...he doesn't reveal his identity. Thus, there's questions about if the verified trading record is his and not that of someone else. In addition, every competitor at the Salon du Trading competition must have a verified trading record or else they are not allowed into the tournament. Further, the competition is audited LIVE as the traders compete against each other and compete in front of a live audience with their broker platforms up on a large screen with a judge standing next to them. In addition, I've seen with my own two eyes institutional traders using chart analysis but its not the only thing they use nor is it the most important thing they use. I've even seen interviews in the offices of a Hedge Fund manager at his desk and you can clearly see his charts as the interview was being broadcast on CNBC or Bloomberg. Thus, they use TA (chart analysis is TA) but not like the typical retail trader uses TA. Regardless, I have never met a fund manager that believes one can trade profitably via TA and nothing else...I too believe that. Then again, maybe they're like surf...they'll say the TA is for illustration purposes only. I'm glad you used the word "seem" because had you stated it as fact...you've been misguided. TA is TA regardless if you use it a lot or a little bit.
Nothing wrong with your post wrbtrader, but this one sentence does stick out a bit for me. When you say those like me, it seems that you're including me in some sort of list villains who have attacked any trader who seems to be profitable on here and this just isn't right. You keep bringing up people from the past, people who used to share. This is all before my time, and more importantly, there isn't anyone who these days is demonstrating any ability to trade profitably and showing what they are doing. Some on here want to only see live calls, and although I understand this, I realize that it may be a bit difficult in the moment to post. At the very least, perhaps a chart at the end of the day would be nice. Simply put, the reason why so many on here have an issue with the experts or supposed vendors or anything in between is because there is nothing tangible to use to evaluate their claims. Now I know what you will do... you will fall back onto saying that the person only has to prove it to themselves, which I agree with. But if this is the case, then you cannot go back in time and say how others have offered verified records in the past, as if to say that at the time is was important. So either verified statements are important, in which case there is none of this now, or verified statements are unnecessary since the newbie trader has to figure this out for himself, in which case all your talk about Salon du Trading isn't all that relevant. You keep saying that there are so many sources out there of verified traders, but you keep having to point to outside sources. You use this as an excuse to defend certain members here, but in no way does the availability of outside verified traders prove anything about those we have here. Can we just stick to this? Nobody on ET is showing a clearly an ability to trade profitably. I'm not saying nobody can, and I have high regards for a few traders who post here, but none of them are demonstrating it. I'm not trying to defend MarketSurfer, but at the very least, I think we should all be able to agree that there is no proof or even demonstration of any profitable trading here at ET at this moment in time by the PA folk. Therefore, I do think that newbie traders, and likewise consistent and jaded losers are justified in thinking that it cannot be done. I don't agree with this sentiment, but its hard to say that black swans exit when you haven't seen one. It doesn't mean they don't, but there are none to be seen here. (Ps. If you follow the posts of Eddie in the ES thread, you will see that he has over the past week or so posted calls in real time that his buddy has made that have been exceptionally good. Very cool indeed. And it would be nice to sometimes have a thread about actual trading with entries and profits and tight stops or whatever else is necessary for consistent profits, as opposed to pages of theory)
What I've noticed is that topics like this usually created by and/or supported by struggling traders. These individuals are usually frustrated and are damning any and everything, with TA being their main whipping boy. It's sad that this forum has become nothing but an endless stream of threads of this type...."why T/A doesn't work." To whomever runs this forum, I'd greatly encourage you to crack down on these repetitive threads because it's running some people away from the forums. In fact, I was invited to a private thread in which a great number of members were talking about branching out and starting their own forum because they're tired of topics such as this being a constant.
FFS It's technical analysis, it isn't a method. We keep having those debates about nothing all the time, what is the point?
I don't disagree one bit that these posts are started and perpetuated by struggling traders. But why don't we look at this from a different angle. The struggling trader has very direct proof that whatever he is doing doesn't work. Maybe he doesn't have a good enough grasp of TA, maybe he doesn't have a plan, maybe he doesn't have discipline, but whatever the reason, he has verifiable proof of his struggling via his dwindling account balance. But how is this struggling trader helped? If ET is meant to be a forum for traders to discuss, why is it that none of the expert traders offer something more tangible? wrbtrader has to dig into the past to find examples of where traders would share something tangible with regards to some sort of consistent demonstration, or he has to to point to sources outside of ET. Why isn't all the crap that MarketSurfer posts met with some type of tangible demonstration? In my opinion, the experts on here aren't really all that much better than the struggling traders. One complains how nothing works, the other other side blame's the way the struggling trader is looking at it. Or rather, as wrbtrader points out, he says trading can't be taught. For every complaint about how PA doesn't work, there are just as many posts to back up why there is never any demonstration, why any demonstration is useless, why it can't be coded, why it can't be taught, why .... etc. If your suggestion is to crack down on repetitive threads of this type, my suggestion is to crack down on people who keep praising something they are not willing to back up themselves. Once again, for the record, I'm not discrediting PA... I'm a firm believer, but those who seem to want to back it up offer so very little that they have no compelling argument. I understand why struggling traders come here to complain, but I don't understand why experienced and profitable traders are only hiding, and complain about all the noise, not realizing that they are for the most part only adding to the noise.
To the best of my knowledge Don Mack only edited the book by Schabacker in his efforts to bring back the book that had been out of print for so many years.. I met Don Mack in the late '70's when he had an investment book store in L.A. The man must have known every investment book ever written! But I remember that he felt Shabacker had a better style of writing which caused him to favor Schabacker's book over Magee's. It's been so long since I read both Schabacker's and Magee's books that a detailed comparison would be difficult to do today. But I would say that Magee's book goes into more detail, and you might want to read Schabacker after Magee rather than before. Sorry I can't provide a better opinion.