understanding and using effectively technical indicators is not simple stuff.
No, you missed the statement of fact completely: there has never been a system better than chance, an expected result given the system in question. If there was, it would have been encoded into software and run on a billion-dollar computer -- or more given it would be worth billions.
Please understand that hiding behind a statement like "it's complicated" is a silly escape hatch. Now, show me the company with the software executing these technical indicators in real-time: it's never, ever, happened. There was a mathematician who thought that he had something useable, if not entirely accurate, but it also failed after a reasonable stretch. Do you hear me? I think so. Do you comprehend what I'm telling you? I don't think so. How can you miss the simple point that facts, theory and experience testing these systems has invariably failed? I don't know, probably for the same reasons people buy into the crackpot solutions in the first place.
Look, it's a gimmick that is supported by the most ridiculous of all evidence: personal anecdotes: untestable, unrepeatable nonsense based on 100% hindsight and always outside the context of the failures. Pick the success and forget the failures. There's a common broker scam where you start with hundres of investors and only call back the winners. Then you bring down the hammer on these guys with your big story about the stock of the century: they and their friends buy a tanker-load of stock that you unload. What actually happend is you kept throwing the losers by the way side creating the appearence with those still standing that you were always right, because for them you always are. |
