J,
Regarding >>> I havent posted much lately as I feel this thread is
disintegrating into alot of TA talk. <<<
Not to belabor the point... and, I will reduce my level of T.A. chat if others agree that it is "causing disintegration." However, I must respectfully dissent. J, I've never mentioned it before on this board, but I work in the money management field. I see how T.A. works, and doesn't work, day in and day out. I mean, I REALLY see how it works. And, if there is one thing that all money managers agree on is that those who work in the academic arena, and who spend a lot of time doing textbook anaysis, are at a big disadvantage. That's why they are not getting paid to give security advice. An appreciation for "decision making strategies" can not be meaningfully analyzed OUTSIDE of the decision making arena. It simply doesn't work. Again, I dissent with the upmost respect. I respect academia tremendously (I spent a lot of time there). But, I'll take insightful, hands-on experienced advice any day.
Moreover, J, not all T.A. is created equal. On this board, and others, you will notice some some folks have much better results than others. i.e. they are successful in INCREASING the probabilities. While others are not so successful. As a professional T.A., as well as a professional money manager, I can assure you that there is more to T.A. than reading charts, etc. It is reading charts in conjuction with your experience at interpreting different situations, market situations, fundamental situations, etc. etc. I, over the years, have improved my results dramatically through EXPERIENCE and experimentation, etc. (How would you, by the way, quantify the improvement of my T.A. skills since I started doing it 15 years ago). Becoming truely skilled at T.A. requires a meaningful amount of time and intensity. None of which the classroom provides. It requires sitting IN FRONT of a real-time terminal and watching price action in conjunction with T.A. and fundamental news, etc., etc. Granted, great strides can be made doing it on less than a full-time basis. However, it still requires a lot of time and dedication to really begin to understand all of the elements that go into it.
In short, all the elements that make up good T.A. are not capable of numerical quatification. Just as quantifying the skills of a lawyer or a musician. T.A. is an art and a science. It's not capable of meaningful measurement to account for all of the subjective elements. (control of your emotions being a big one, individual style, etc.)
I could go on and on J, but I won't. I'm sorry if I come across as being on a soap box. But, I watch it every day... and I know how the stuff really works, and when it is less useful. Furthermore, even people in the industry who are unsophicated at T.A. begin to appreciate the value of combining technical analysis with fundamental analysis once they are exposed to it. It's not hard to see how a stocks behavior is affected by various circumstances (e.g. a large volume reversal, a break-away gap, a 200 day moving average, a combination thereof, etc, etc.) The people "in the know" really know J. Why do you think the George Soroz'and Jeff Vinik's of the world use it to broaden their analysis?
Again, I respectfully dissent. As for T.A. decreasing the quality of this thread, I think that more information is always useful. But, I might be wrong.
Best regards,
Wade |
