>>>>. It is just one more anecdotal account (your personal results), >>>>>and a dubious allusion to authority ("power traders"). The proof >>>>>>that TA works is not to befound in your remarkable trading
>>>>skills, no more than the proof that arthritis can be cured by
>>>> wearing acopper bracelet is to be found in old-wives tails about
>>>> its efficacy. If the technique is valid, it should be
>>>>statistically
>>>>demonstrable, and if it were, I'd be first in line to start using
>>>> it.But the simple fact is that all of the studiespoint in the
>>>> opposite direction.
>> Regards,
>> Paul
Paul,
I would also add that if you used it successfully, it would quickly stop working. TA proponents forget what a great discounting mechanism the market is...and they keep using the same tired old technics of trendlines, breakout patterns and volume studies that have "worked" for decades. (although I must admit a peek or two at a few of them from time to time..no one is perfect)
I don't know what it is about CLE boards that spark these arguments so frequently...but in anycase I would add one more thing in defense of the once again bashed academic world:
A good "scientist" has nothing to gain by cooking the numbers. They work with the given data and start with no conclusions. I have incredible faith in that if there were a "system" that could consistently beat the market they would have found it.
Finally, if Jason can't back up to see the forest for the trees, I can show him dozens of charts that would make him wet this pants with "buy signal" excitement (you know, the ones with the tendline tattoos)...only that things just didn't work out the way the TA suggested.
B.
|
