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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Technical Analysis- Indicators & Systems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Spots who wrote (3136)	4/13/1998 11:03:00 PM
From: ftth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3325

Hi spots, as for your comments about you're "hardly qualified to comment," I don't believe that's the case. You have the math background which is at least half the battle (unless you just want to be an indicator "user," in which case that isn't necessary). TA is mainly just theories and observations about price and volume behavior put into an equation and plotted. One person's theories are just as valid as another's for the most part. No one has a corner on the TA market, so it's up for debate what constitutes an "expert" when it comes to TA (after all, an expert is just someone who knows more and more about less and less). Although it is very useful to read "famous" people's TA theories because they can "plant seeds" that lead you to experiment with alternatives (or learn what NOT to do), it's not a prerequisite for being able to make sensible observations and formulate your own theories. Your comments and observations are just as valuable as anyone's. Since they are just theories (until they make us wealthy anyway), opposing viewpoints always have value unless a person chooses not to give them value. Besides, you have no preconceived biases based on "what you've read from the experts." I've found that the more defensive people become when you question their TA theories, the less confident they really are in their "method." If they've really thought through their method, they should be able to refute opposition from all angles. I have no such consistently "bulletproof" method and I welcome all comments about my hypotheses. If there are holes that I'm missing, I want to know about them. dh