It has been a long time since I posted anything on this distinguished forum. The topic at hand is obviously not new and has been discussed at least 10 times since I joined this site back in early 2000s. As in my previous posts I would like to make a suggestion. In order for this discussion to make any sense the participants should first agree what exactly they call "Technical Analysis". I doubt there will be an agreement, however if there was one then arguments could be made on both sides more precisely and the whole discussion might then make more sense. It could be very beneficial to the new comers (at least) to read this thread providing the subject is refined enough to make logical arguments. Cheers, MAESTRO
Do you really believe that you have access to more or better data than folks who study the miniuta of what you imagine yourself doing? That's ridiculous and the utmost in arrogance. Some alias sitting at his wife's house on the Internet has better data sets than top academics who can access data you don't even know exists? This is getting sad.
Just because you are unaware of the rules, does not mean it does not exist. again, this is the world is flat and earth is center of universe argument. + It seems like you are the one searching. I find great comfort in knowing that you will die before you figure it out. enjoy your ignorance
You're still not getting it. I'm not saying I have access to MORE data, I'm saying that the way in which someone strings together a bunch of rules (could be 3 could be 100 or more) to create a system and all the inputs out there at ones disposal creates a near infinite combo of possibilities. You haven't thought about all the complexities and subtleties that could be inserted into system to refine and improve performance. The study you posted was so basic, it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.
Clearly the magic formula is only available to the chosen few. Why 100% of these golks only exist on the internet is the real mystery.
He proclaims he does not know everything, but then proclaims that if he doesn't know something it either doesn't exist or we are FOS
Subjective, discretionary trading via TA may work in some circumstances. I am open to the possibility. Unfortunately, as soon as you claim it's objective is when I know you are confused or making stuff up. surf
It's not a formula, it's comes with experience. How many of those academics your citing make their money from actual trading vs. their book sales? [crickets]
Please stop, you haven't a clue. One's i personally know: Vic niederhoffer is one trading academic who doesn't believe in TA. Nasim Taleb and James Altucher are two more off the top of my head. I could name multiple more given the time to think it over... I'll agree, it's possibly subjective ( experience). But it can't be quantified , isn't objective and can't be programmed. surf