>>> I respectfully refer you to MARKET WIZARDS:Interviews with Top >>>Traders by Jack Schwager. It is not a
>>> book on technical analysis, but rather on "greatness" and you >>>may surprisingly find that the TRADERS who
>>> are the BEST of the BEST, creme de la creme, frequently rely >>>>on technical analysis as an important tool...
Well, this is supposed to be a discussion about CLE, but as long as nothing else is going on, if I may continue to interject my unsolicited opinion...
Market Wizards is quite good, as is its Sequel. However, it is hardly Empirical evidence that TA works (don't tell Peter Lynch). I refer you (as long as we are all well read here) to A RANDOM WALK DOWN WALLSTREET. The boiled down point is that if gillion people all flip a coin a thousand times, some smartie is going to flip 100 heads out of 100 flips. He makes it to your book COIN FLIPPING WIZARDS as a "great".
What the evidence suggests is not that an individual cannot beat the market, but rather that the number of people that do does not fall outside the standard deviations of LUCK. Now if you want to argue that the "bell curve" of people that beat the market vs the ones that don't roughly matches the "bell curve" of intelligence, you may have a valid arguement. ;-)
>>> Furthermore, dismissing the impressive results of a great >>>
>>trader (or traders) as "anecdoctal" or "remarkable" is
>> self-serving and logically irrational. If one, only ONE, trader >.>produces year over year results that are
>>> statistically superior to the S&P 500 average, and he/she >>
>>>maintains that technical analysis has played a vital
>>> role in this achievement, then the technique warrants further >>>attention. However, this is not the case, little
>>> developing trader Jason on Silicon Investor is NOT the only >>
>>>ONE producing tremendous returns due to TA.
>>> In fact, more thorough research (please read book above -or >>
>>>many others in bookstore) will reveal that most, if
>>> not all, outstanding TRADERS rely substantially on forms of >>
>>>technical analysis and their returns speak
>>> incontrovertibly to its validity.
Again, the coin flipper that flipped those 100 heads reads the bumps on his wife' head...and claims it is valid.
Jason, the number of people beating the market does not prove a winning system unless that number falls outside the standard deviations one would expect from a any "random" event. There is plenty of data on this, and it is not in your argument's favor.
>>> that will tell one how to become a successful trader is: >>>
>>>TRADER VIC - Methods of a Wall Street Master. He
>>> shows in the preface on page X his 10 year annualized return >
>>>record against the S&P. I'll let you guess as to
>>> whether he blows it away or not. ( and VIC is just "great", >>
>>>there are better traders out there)
Again, a nice book.
>>>> academicians who do not have the skill to succeed themselves >>>>in the field they analyze.
Those poor academics...
B. |
