I have always been rather suspicious of the Elliot Wave. I bought a book on the subject several years ago and could never bring myself to finish it. Rightly or wrongly, I suspected that Elliot Wave theorists characteristically constructed evidence after the fact to support the theory, what with the multiple interpretations and reinterpretations and so on. If there is indeed a way to test it objectively, I would be curious to see the results of such testing.
I cannot compete with you. You have just revealed yourself as someone who willfully engages in malicious conduct for its own sake. You win.
speaking of elliott wave, is anyone familiar with glen nealy's work in his book "mastering elliott wave" ? This was the first book I ever read regarding trading and it had quite the impact on my formative years. In my opinion, neally is the only one who has put into writing an objective study of wave theory. However, is the underlying premise in error? if so, regardless of rigor, the book may be fatally flawed. i think of complex astrological studies that are correct within the context, but the context itself is meaningless. with this said, even if subjective TA can't be tested and can't be verified--- is it possible that the rare individual exists who can interpret chats profitably over a significant period of time? like a rembrandt of chart reading? surf
frankly, i think people overemphasize charts. one can do TA without charts (yes, u can...) and certainly take into account diferent factors that are not chart based all charts are is a MODEL. scientists use models all the time, simply to represent data. that's all they do, but i think people attach mythical significance to them, which is part of why TA sometimes sounds more like a religion or cult, when of course (imo) it has utility - i know that , since i make a living trading. the elliot guys start getting really arcane with their "2nd wave of the third phase of the chewbacca formation" stuff that just gets old to me, but if it works for you - more power to you im a big fan of market profile, which can sound equally arcane, with its jargon. so i guess i'm not one to talk
Remember this ? Citigroup Eliminates Stock Technical Analysis Group http://www.thestreet.com/stocks/brokerages/10209532.html
Thanks. what i found most interesting is not that the 2 large broker houses eliminated their TA departments--but rather the placement of the TA divisions within the companies. One would guess TA would be in the research division, however, these departments were housed in the marketing and PR divisions! the public believes in TA therefore these brokers gave the public what they wanted......untill it became too costly--- this is the message I read from the decision. surf
I comment on this in the book. I read it as the customers finally getting fed up with the typical meaningless predictions that TA depts crank out. Just vague pronouncements that are based on subjective / informal analysis. The world of investors is becoming more sophisticated and quantitative. They will expect more. I think I guy like Richard Bernsteing at Merrill Lynch, I think he is called a strategist, is more what the quant/sophisticate wants. His research, the little I have seen of it strikes me as more solidly based. David Aronson
<i>"with this said, even if subjective TA can't be tested and can't be verified--- is it possible that the rare individual exists who can interpret chats profitably over a significant period of time? like a rembrandt of chart reading?"</i> Please... let's not make consistent trading success via charts while using subjective analysis akin to genuis or savant ability. Any human being of reasonable intelligence and attention span CAN LEARN to read charts profitably. Period. The two brokerage houses in question relegated TA to lower status simply because they made the mistake of assuming their glossy-resume` hirees actually could identify their own a** from a hollow tree. Wrong assumption: chart reading is not learned in college. I'd happily trade against ANY of those investment-bank morons any time, in public. They can use their algorithm-based inferior crap to my delight... if they think 5% ~ 15% annual returns with black-box strategies are something to marvel at, that's too funny for words
Beleive it or not, there are people with far more resources, money, access, computer power and information who have tested and test on a consistent basis HUGE data bases who totally disagree with you. This stuff has been tested over and over and over again by some of the finest minds in the business-- very little of any worth has come of it. hind sight is 20/20--sure anyone can learn to read charts, however, predicting the future from charts in is a totally different animal. the right way to view TA is objectively, not whether or not so and so made a killing from the "head and shoulder" pattern. As David Aronson says (paraphrased) "if TA and its practioners do not change it will be regulated to the dust bin of history" TA experts can't tell the difference between a random number generated chart and one from actual prices. Do you think you can? surf
<b>Surf</b>, with all due respect, you miss the point. Price action CAN BE predicted into the future based entirely off what it has done in the past. If that were not true, how the hell could anyone make a dime trading said charts? In my opinion, after having worked with literally 1,000s of aspiring and successful traders since early 2001, all of this TA bashing is orginated from people who never learn to trade the charts. Simple as that. Lord knows I spent my time in the trenches, beating my head against rocks trying to figure out how to make this profession work. Trust me... there are lots of ways to predict future price action based off current information <b>with greater than 50% accuracy</b>. People who haven't yet figured that out often head down other rabbit trails in search of discovery. * Being able to tell a stock chart from random price action is moot... one has moved in sequence due to honest buy-sell decisions that will predictably unwind in the future, and the other is just a jumble of voodoo math. I've run enough monte carlo tests off $3,000 annual lease fee software to know the latter has absolutely nothing to do with trading real life charts profitably. <b>Surf, David</b>, my opinion is nothing personal. I like both of you guys and think your opinions are valid... just lacking sufficient information. I would offer that my opinion is a voice of vast experience with quantified, measurable TA in system testing AND building trade methods with seemingly esoteric tools. Hope this helps