clever, but im just stating facts. Oh, I'm actually not clever at all. I see others who believe they're clever, though. then why use it? if you are not predicting the odds are greater of a continuation move in the same direction after entry--what good is TA? The concept of 'edge' has been talked about a lot here. Evidently you either don't see it or don't think in those terms. TA isn't trading. Trading encompasses a whole lot more than 'How do you predict which way prices are going to go next'. It's odd to me that you seem to have spent so much time around traders and trading and haven't yet seen that there are literally hundreds of ways to enter, all of which can lead to profitable trading. have not backed off. Sure you did You stated that "TA is not math based". That is obviously not true - one needs only to look at the formula for calculating an MA to prove it. Therefore, you have backed off that claim. It's no problem, I have changed my mind in the past and will do so again in the future. It takes a man to admit he was wrong.
I have to weigh in and say that there are an infinite combination of indicators, settings, and timeframes. If a firm did use TA, it would be a hard won research victory of finding a successful combination that works. I seriously doubt that anyone would just tell people the correct formula. It would be passed down as a family secret, and knowledge of the correct formula would closely guarded and limited to the knowledge of a few. That said, those who say that TA does not work really mean TA does not work FOR THEM. They have not found the right combination of indicator, settings, timeframe, and trading rules to be profitable consistently. It is human nature to discount what cannot be had. Those that cannot will become obsessed with what they could not get. If their obsession is not productive then they will become bitter, and rationalize their failure by blaming the brokers, the illuminati, the PPT, the data, the platform, the spouse, anything but themselves. Further, they will tell everyone else that has not yet found success that success cannot be found, because they could not find it. Ego protection, that's all it ever was, all it ever can be. As was said earlier, if ONE human being has done it, then the assertion that it cannot be done is not valid. Best Regards Oddi
It is said that best traders are those who have good math and statistics background because they can play around the numbers to find trends etc. This might also mean that TA that public knows and likes to trash has much deeper interpretations but those that are hidden or are proprietary. Why would some reveal their secret? Is there some system that combines TA with Astrology.....that would be some 21st century science to make money.
I agree. I just spent a week with a guy that paid cash for a new condo in Hong Kong, all new furnishings and a new BMW with trading profits entirely generated from TA. I guess I'll have to call him to tell him not to move in cause the cash must not have been real.
It all depends on the level of outperformance, frequency of trading, trading costs, length of time the record exists for etc i.e. all the factors which affect your confidence intervals. If someone with a very high trading frequency and high trading costs gets a 40% return over a 20 year period, the likelihood of that being chance is infinitesimally small. Far lower than the likelihood of most causations that are accepted without question. The fact is, some traders have compiled records whose confidence intervals are extremely high. Therefore we can justifiably say it is not survivorship bias, since the chance of it being luck is statistically extremely low, given the inputs. Even a field of 1 billion traders would not, by chance, get anywhere near that kind of result. The numer of traders is of course way below 1 billion. Also, if you take the same approach and apply it to other performance fields e.g. competitive sports, scientific research etc, you can also make the same argument i.e. it is down to luck. Shakespeare simply got lucky and happened to type words in the order he did - given the huge number of writers since writing was invented, we should dismiss him as a lucky example of survivorship bias. Same with Mozart, or a champion boxer or ball player. Surely it is just luck, with so many people competing for the same goal? The only people who say it is survivorship bias are those with poor understanding of statistics and logical inference, or no knowledge of the records that are out there.
<b>It all depends on the level of outperformance, frequency of trading, trading costs, length of time the record exists for etc i.e. all the factors which affect your confidence intervals. If someone with a very high trading frequency and high trading costs gets a 40% return over a 20 year period, the likelihood of that being chance is infinitesimally small. Far lower than the likelihood of most causations that are accepted without question.</b> i don't agree. it happens, so the chances are 100% that someone, somewhere will pull this off--how do you know this person does not have informational advantage, is a skilled tape reader or simply a talented predictor?? you say its due to TA, i say its due to myraid of other factors. <b>The fact is, some traders have compiled records whose confidence intervals are extremely high. Therefore we can justifiably say it is not survivorship bias, since the chance of it being luck is statistically extremely low, given the inputs. Even a field of 1 billion traders would not, by chance, get anywhere near that kind of result. The numer of traders is of course way below 1 billion.</b> sure they would, why not?? there are numerous ways to trade and make consistent money. objective TA ,as generally understood, is not one of them. <b>Also, if you take the same approach and apply it to other performance fields e.g. competitive sports, scientific research etc, you can also make the same argument i.e. it is down to luck. Shakespeare simply got lucky and happened to type words in the order he did - given the huge number of writers since writing was invented, we should dismiss him as a lucky example of survivorship bias. Same with Mozart, or a champion boxer or ball player. Surely it is just luck, with so many people competing for the same goal?</b> when TA is tested objectively if fails to perform---- why?? yes, artists exist who can make money using it, apparently, but its subjective, non testable, non transferable-- what they do. <b>The only people who say it is survivorship bias are those with poor understanding of statistics and logical inference, or no knowledge of the records that are out there. </b> im not a math PhD, however I know several who would disagree with you. surf