Exactly my view of it. Neither science nor art... Just a tool... As long as it helps to trade profitably, why not use it?
T/a is just tool out of many tools which help a trader become profitable. Here is what the t/a road map shows .A nice up move with no falling rocks.
Next minute the rocks start falling and price drops like a ton No matter how many positive threads are started ,the truth will always remain .Just continue the old threads , rather than opening new ones.
Gotta disagree. The whole purpose of TA is to provide an edge via entry and exit signals. Position sizing is not an edge, position sizing is how you maximize your edge. But if you don't have an edge (positive expectation) to begin with, no kind of position sizing will give you one. This is seen readily with casino games like craps and roulette; no amount of martingaling or anti-martingaling will put enough lipstick on those pigs to make a difference in the long run.
TA most certainly provides no edge. If it did, the 90% of traders who use it wouldnt blow their accounts in 6 months. And before anyone comes back with the idea that 'it depends on how TA is used, or interpreted etc', then that proves my point - as the edge wont be dependant on the TA, but luck of subjective decision making.
Your problem is that you don't know all TA. Nobody can. So your flat-out assertion that TA never works is like the patent clerk who quit the US Patent Office back in the 1880s because "everything has already been invented." If you expect to find working TA in a book then yes, you'll most likely fail. Get creative.
I've tried to make this point many times...it always gets ignored by the negative nellies. Of COURSE all TA cannot be tested or evaluated. There are an infinite combination of inputs that can create a working system. To suggest that someone has tested them all is ludicrous. And to suggest that someone has not only found everything that one could use to evaluate trading opportunities but that also has implemented them in all possible sequences to test their effectiveness is even more ludicrous. I've also made the point of getting creative....another concept that went ignored by these guys.
Seems to me that some of these guys are fishing for someone with a working system to finally get so frustrated at the debate that they just give it away to shut them the f-ck up. I guess if you can't figure one out, just pestering the sh1t out of someone with a working system is one way to go about getting one.
On a positive note, I just realized a great benefit from the five to six parallel running threads [they proliferate like rats, so hard to keep track]: It makes for great Ignore & Buddy lists. It is quite obvious, which member's aren't worth reading. Very efficient...
So let me get this straight: 1. TA cant be tested. 2. TA cant be evaluated. 3. TA has infinite different inputs. 4. No one person can test all of TA. I love that first one sooooooo much!! TA CAN NOT BE TESTED So, how the hell can you be sure something works, IF, as you ADMIT, it cant be tested!! And I thought back testing was the cornerstone of what yoy TA junkies believed in. Thank you so much for being man enough to admit what the others cant see. At last there is progress after weeks and weeks of debate in these various threads. YOU SIR DESERVE A MEDAL!! A big shiny gold one too!