Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Iceberg who wrote (4734)	12/10/1997 12:41:00 PM
From: Big Dog	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 95453

I think it's time for some pie.

To: Iceberg who wrote (4734)	12/10/1997 11:52:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 95453

Ice: > there is no statistical data that suggests that TA works Flan, Are you sure about that? I am! TA is bogus. I wraps itself up in a lot of statistical jargon, but never applies statistical tests to its own predictions. ARIMA models fail to demonstrate any predictable patterns in past price behavior, and filtering for such classic patterns as head and shoulders and cup and saucer fails to demonstrate any predictive power. It uses Bollinger bands as a surrogate for standard deviation, but it never defines the mean. It uses MACD to identify inflection points (as in first and second derivatives for those of you familiar with calculus) but never defines the underlying equation. Clearly, the mathematics are flawed! Finally, it uses the cop out of it being an art -- that way you can never test it because its success, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The only evidence advanced in support of T/A is anecdotal, and therefore unverifiable. All of the data suggest that market prices follow a random walk. Regards, Paul