Evidently, not a very good one. So, does that mean that, until you met VN and became his devotee, you were a lousy trader because you were a TA "practioner," and TA does not work? But what about all of your claims of trading prowess, your "fund," and your marketsurfer website? Those were all there before you began your association with VN. Were those all lies? Did you make all kinds of money or did you not? And if you did, then how can you say TA does not work? You have, after all, been implying something of a track record. Try to follow your own string of logic, marketsurfer. Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Or, like your rationale for giving a bogus book endorsement, does the truth not really matter after all?
Great post. Past prices on a chart are kind of like footprints in the sand. By following them and looking farther out you can use the law of probabilities to figure where these footprints are most likely to lead you.
Wonderful Post! Now create the environment where you can fine tune or tune in those probabilities to move toward 100%. They will never reach 100% but you can move toward 100%. You can see the percentages increase in your favor based on the environment.
when did i ever claim to posess "trading prowess"? Yes, I have made excellent market calls and trades that are in the public record. I have also made lousy calls and trades which were also recorded in public forum. your lying comment really makes no sense. people and trading evolve and ideas are constantly being improved upon and/or discarded. TA is not a religion, although you are treating it as such. bogus book endorsement? i liked the book, its well written and entertaining. however, it's premise is fatally flawed. there is another book with the term "trend" in its title, being released any day now by a huge publishing house, which i am also mentioned in.... does this mean i "believe" in trend trading?? no. does this mean that several of my best friends are 'trend trading TA practioners'--- yes. surf
You continue to miss the point, either willfully or due to artful ineptitude. If you used TA in the past, and "made excellent market calls and trades that are in the public record," then how can you now pronounce that TA does not work? Are you now reinterpreting the past? Further, in your earlier post, you mentioned that TA works until it doesn't. What about VN's stated approach to the markets, which you do not even really understand beyond a few well-chosen buzz words and statistical references? Are you suggesting that his approach is more robust? VN's "scientific" biases also work until they don't. You are dazzled by him but are turning a blind eye to his voracious appetite for risk. As for your references to the "masses" in you earlier post, please be assured that you do not wear the hauteur very well.
I agree with you except for the last sentence. Most of the time the Ferraris and Maseratis are not from traders but from people who make huge commissions on the activities of traders. I find it always funny when people make statements about what works and what doesn't. They judge as if they were God, but they don't realize that the only experience they take in account for the judgement is their own experience. I can't play golf, so it is impossible to play golf. I can't speak Chinese, so it is impossible to speak Chinese. From the moment on that you say "it's not because i cannot do something, that it is impossible to do" you show the first signs of intelligence.
Great statement. Too bad you don't believe it, otherwise you wouldn't give a blanket condemnation to anything related to Technical Analysis. TA "IS" constantly being improved on and evolving and you can not even fathom how but yet you condemn it all. TA "IS" constantly discarding the inconsistent, improving the probabilities but yet you condemn it all. Any book regarding TA and referencing "you" in any form other then to point out the above observation should be considered highly suspect in its findings even before reading it.
If I have failed to say so in the past I make up for any past indiscretions . . . This is an outstanding post!