Try again, Scientist. I never said timeframes don't influence each other. Timeframes are within each other. Therefore they must influence each other. However, price is not influenced by settings or timeframe. If you think that the price is going to change just because you change from one timeframe to another, you've got to be very new.
LOL. You're just not getting the point. Your opinions are unbalanced and lack full manifestation. Since your statements are contradictory, they're shallow and without essence. They aren't rock solid manifestations of truth gathered by experience, thus you will fail for you cannot stand in the shore when the waves of superior traders are gushing over you. You are deemed to fail one unfortunate day, such as missing to get out on a crash. You're a misguided sheep, weaning yourself in clueless safety, asking to be mauled by a superior trader like me. Did you know that research suggests that both animals and humans feel nothing but peace in the moment they give themselves up and get flooded with endorphines? - When they know they have been mauled and there is no way to escape? It's supposed to be nature's way of calming down the prey and to say "thank you" to the prey for submitting what is only nature's course by necessity. Your money in my account! ~Scientist.
I just attended a job networking meeting which has as its members the long term unemployed. They are all a bunch of cranks who like to hear themselves talk, pronounce their numerous opinions and engage in oneupsmanship.... much like this forum. Think about it.
Wow. I love how these debates can really flare up. There's always a fresh round of bashing/defending/arguing ad infinitum when it comes to the value of TA. I was really positively surprised by the CTFC statement, in the sense that I hope that as many people buy into, soak in and adopt market efficiency as their religion. It still annoys me to see the NYtimes use technical terms to describe market action, TA should belong to our minority and I hate to see it paraded for the masses out there. Let them live and lose their money with all the wonderful alternatives put forward by academia and all those who take the 'moral' high ground out there, (Malkiels and Gallachers of the world among many others.) As if the beating they have taken over the last 3 years wasn't enough to show the absolute worthlessness of conventional wisdom (read FA and whatever else is spewed as the 'right' or 'rational' way to invest/trade) I will never forget one of my finance professors in college. He vehemently tried to destroy my honors thesis on the random walk and challenges presented to it by statistical patterns that I have uncovered. But the honors panel had to take it like men, I had three economists/finance people including one from Syracuse and one mathematician. They tried to shoot holes in it but in the end had no other option but to grant me honors. The data spoke for itself and did all the talking. My research and the programming that was part of the thesis uncovered significant (statistically speaking) support for localized non randomness in the equity market. Sure most of the time, you will find that a markov process proxies pretty damn well for the real thing, or I should rather say provides an amazing optical illusion. But for those who have the mathematical and statistical clout to think for themselves, I would urge them to think and look twice. One of the mysteries that will always fascinate me, and this finds ultimate expression in price discovery, is how determinism masquerades as randomness under some specific circumstances. To me, I picture and envision deterministic patterns (and I am not talking about triangles, flags, h&s and things like that) in the market as elusive formations that somehow have a life of their own. They do not want to be known. They only reveal themselves to the very few. I was rereading the Alchemy of Finance by Soros recently. And I was amazed at how his tape reading action covered for his so called fundamental approach, albeit significantly improved by his superb understanding of reflexivity. Markets do not tend to equilibrium! Soros says so and has PROVEN so in his 30+ trading record. I can hear the professors chanting their mantra: "Take a big enough sample of traders and surely one of them will come out a winner." Sorry folks, faulty reasoning. The real probability you want to compute is this: What are is the mathematical probability of a trader having the record of Soros, that is an average annual return of 31% over 30 years, given the fact that the guy is clearly extremely perceptive and intelligent. That is a DIFFERENT PROBABILITY than the one touted by those ivory tower wise asses. Ask Soros, he will tell you. Reflexivity in far from equilibrium cases, is what drives the trends we see on our screens. We are irrational creatures and the whole process of trading is alchemy simply because price is an active ingredient of the process, not a a passive reflection of analysts' valuations. That is where Economics went terribly wrong. It completely ignores the participating function, solely focusing on the cognitive function. In reality y = f(x), yes, but! x = f(y) and this is why markets cannot be random, as long as we have thinking and biased participants driving prices to where they want to go. Just my take, Maverick.