Thank you, kut2k2 for your explanations. But, does it mean that we shall not know the truth and success of TA? I doubt it, as so many traders have shared their trading experiences, so why not the same in TA? Many traders gained from the experiences of other traders in stock & market handling. So, why has OBV and Elliot Waves failed?
Multiply the fib point by 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and so on or .9, .8, .7 .6 .5 and so on and the results will be the same as the fib ponts themselves. Conclusion, random sequential fractional portions of a whole will give you the same results as strict adherence to fib sequence numbers.
There are two forms of TA, Predictive and trend following. Predictive methods try to predict what will happen in the future, for example "there is support at 1600 we should get a bounce up" Predictive TA does not hold up, in my opinion. The future is unknown. There is another form which is trend following. For example "this market has been and is continuing to move up, I will buy and when it stops moving up I will sell. I could be buying at the top, I don't know but my risk is limited because as soon as the market begins to move down I will sell. My profit is unlimited because as long as the market continues to move up I will continue to hold and the probability is in my favor because the market is already in motion." The trend following method has proven to be successful by traders who have consistently made high returns using the method.
My goal as a trader is to be an accurate observer of what the market is telling me and use the tools available to exploit that observation. While it may be gratifying to predict market activity, it is ultimately a lost cause!
Really? I think it's full of semantical ironies. What he's saying is you can use the same TA but applying it differently. There is no "types of TA", there is "types of users". ... meaning... "TA is subjective, and value comes the person applying it." ... meaning... Scientifically, TA is worthless.