at first glance, i note your exits are not indicated on the chart. are you willing to post trade blotters verifying a consistent, profitable method that can be cross referenced to the chart(s) shown/provided? if you are able to show consistency trading in this manner, you are truly unique/gifted and i am impressed. if not, oh well...nothing new. best regards, surf
Surf, First off thanks for sharing I'm not interested in a book that tells me TA does not work because my bank is as real as it gets. What I am interested in is a book that will help me maximize what I already know about TA and add to it. In your opinion will this book do that and is this another quant MATH book that will require me to use databases and complicated speadsheets to work?
marketsurfer- Have you been able to read most of the book? I was able to look at it for awhile this past weekend and its approach is one that interests me. However, I ended up not buying it yet as it spent a lot of pages covering philosophical issues (of which I was already aware) before getting down to the nitty-gritty of applying the scientific method to technical analysis. I am already aware that the scientific rigor applied to most technical analysis is on a par with that applied to astrology and tea leave reading so I didn't need a book to tell me that. Am I correct in my assessment?
hey joab--- thanks for the note. just as a point of clarification-- i am not the author, nor do i get paid for ANY of my recomendations. simply, i am passionate about this business and like to share what i have learned and discover. yes, i believe the book will add to your knowledge and its far more than just another quant ripping on TA. you can always send it back, if you don't think it has value--OR just read it at borders and decide first hand. best regards, surf
well, yes and no. yes, i have read the book and learned from it. the authors perspective on things is different than the run of the mill. in addition, i find the way he applies stats to TA to be unique in several ways. with this said, be aware that i am not a heavy math guy, so you may find it too simplistic and repetitive. best wishes, surf
WOW!! Three trades and we can declare that TA works? Try repeating this a thousand times in all market conditions and see what happens. . . . this doesn't even qualify as being Fooled by Randomness.
You have not been able to convince me.... I think you are full of it.... I don't know why........I just know that you are....
please proof me wrong, if you dare.....post your trades live, p&L included, and then we talk.... up to that point....it seems to be all smoke and mirrors...
<i>"WOW!! Three trades and we can declare that TA works? Try repeating this a thousand times in all market conditions and see what happens. . . . this doesn't even qualify as being Fooled by Randomness."</i> Was it ass-u-me-d that these three sessions (Monday not shown due to space) were the first three I've ever traded? Would it help to know I've spent 1,000s of manhours running code thru mechanical systems which require black & white data to function? Does anyone know that daily pivot points are touched (or nearly so) more than 70% of the pit-traded session hours year after year? Knowing that fact (it is a provable fact), is it also a stretch to believe that certain market conditions provide high-odds trade setups confirmed by a visual glance? ** No one needs trade blotters to prove anything. Unless I totally misread the book's forward and premise, TA only works on its face if can be proven 100% quantifiable thru rigorous study. Is my understanding accurate, or do I have it wrong? If I'm wrong, I apologize sincerely. If my understanding of the book's premise is correct, the only possible TA that works is such that can be proven in systematic fashion. That belief is pure hogwash... or more aptly the stuff that gets washed off the hog. If said book leads one down a different path of thinking, I'm wrong and apologize. If the book touts TA only works if it can be proven in systematic fashion, I've written enough systems to know that is the total opposite of fact. Hope this explanation helps :>)