Raymond.........
Its somewhat pointless arguing, as you manage to weasel out
of corners by changing your language. First you say something
is a zero-sum game, and then you agree it isn't. Then you put
up charts showing where a price can be EXPECTED to reach, while
simultaneously saying YOU ARE NOT MAKING A PREDICTION!
You talk of physics, but I see no physics here. I am not an
expert on Finance, but I'll talk physics, probability,
statistics or computer science on any level you want.
I am not attacking your analysis (though you seem to be
bringing out a strange defense as though I am) but only saying
its best that you publicize the limitations of the technique
as well as you advertise your wares.
If you want to show someone that something works, you'd do
that with a rigorous proof, and not with examples. Remember,
all one needs is a single counter-example to show that something
you claim is true doesn't work. Yes, a trending indicator works
when a stock is trending but, what exactly is a statistic (an
indicator) without error-bounds buying you? There is no statement
of error associated with the statistic. I'm sure you wouldn't
want to board a plane if the only assurance you got was "if the
plane takes off then there is no need to worry!". Surely, you would
want to know that the probability of failure is very, very low.
If air-craft engineers spend years being concerned about such
things, why are TA-engineers pushing heuristic stuff without
error bounds even today?
Finally, I surely hope you understand I like TA. What I have
difficulty with is the current brand of TA-analysts who push
it without pointing out its problems. Whether this is due to
a lack of understanding of its limitations or due to their
zeal in pushing their agenda, I do not know. In any case, the
public should be educated, or else they rely on TA specialists
at their peril.
Regards,
Joseph |
