to the OP: Congratulations! You found the holy grail !!! Just place your orders against your indicators and you are 100% profitable !!!
A few years ago I thought the system is bad when I lost money. Later I learned that there are many systems that are profitable. Why dont you post the backtest results?
lol, not sure what your sources are. But I have hardly seen a PhD on the trading floors I worked on. Not 2008, 2009, and not this year. Some in quant teams, yes, but thats about it. Compare those numbers with MBAs and even M.S. guys and you can claim you live in reality. Go to the websites of the top 10 quant finance programs (such as UCB, NYU, CMU...) and look at the placement stats. You notice that even last year and this year the entire roster has been hired. This is by far not the case with finance PhDs. A number of those guys end up in non ibanking environments, not because they did not want to work there but because they were not employable in this field, regarding their sometimes esoteric dissertations. By the way, I have never ever seen someone with a PhD (without much prior work experience, which to a large degree reflects reality) coming out of school and getting paid more than a quant M.S. with some prior work experience. None!!! Not sure what you are talking about.
This is one of the dumbest posts I have ever read on here and there have been some really dumb posts from time to time. It is obvious you are looking for some technical "holy grail" without truly having any instincts for the what you are trying to achieve. Sure there are a lot of people just like you that are totally unsuitable for trading. But there are people making money trading, you dismiss their existance in your theory. The truth is that many of the technicals you quote should only be used as a background indicator of potential opportunities. The reason you take the opportunity in reality may be for a very fundamental reason. I've had some recent experience trading with someone who uses a highly technical system and my observation is he's decent at it but he lets the technicals override common sense sometimes, either missing opportunities or cutting his profit potential. I do believe he is a profitable trader however. In your case, I suspect it is like giving a new car to someone with no driving experience. In theory the car might be of some use to you, but you are missing numerous vital steps to make it so.
I like you! You got a killer attitude. But, what I don't agree on is... It's wrong-headed thinking that we have enough "love" to spread to all the women in the world.
The Art of Racing in the Rain" Read it for the parts about how to drive a race car in the rain. Think of it as similar to what you have to do if you want to succeed here. The TA stuff is the instrument panel of the car. But if all you do is look at that, you're going to miss that oncoming telephone pole.
Are you kidding? That guys attitude is the same hel by many denziens of soup kitchens. Given his moniker. I wouldn't be surprised if that's his abode also.
There are backtesting engines, one is from Zack's, that work with fundamental data.. they are pricey and I have not had occasion or need to use them... I did find a fundamental pattern that was profitable once but it's nothing compared to technical trading...