Technical Analysis = Astrology?

[onemind]

Markets are great things
They = opportunity

If We are up to making that most of that opportunity

And I am not saying they aren't. My purpose is to get to the bottom of t/a, not all the other viable ways of extracting money from the markets.

The list of ways to make money that I listed is as far as I have got, for all I know, there are better ways that I havent thought of yet but for now, this thread is about t/a.

And by the looks of it, you are in agreement and the other 2 have an untestable method of t/a that works which the author describes as delusion..

 

[professor_frink]

So if you cant test it what is it? A hunch? Intuition? Devine guidance?

It's subjective. That doesn't mean it's 100% wrong.

 

[onemind]

I think the whole point of science it to be objective.

If you have some kind of subjective ability that works for you but i lack, then thats great but of no use to anyone but yourself..

 

[wayneL]

And I am not saying they aren't. My purpose is to get to the bottom of t/a, not all the other viable ways of extracting money from the markets.

The list of ways to make money that I listed is as far as I have got, for all I know, there are better ways that I havent thought of yet but for now, this thread is about t/a.

And by the looks of it, you are in agreement and the other 2 have an untestable method of t/a that works which the author describes as delusion..

Some mathematics are not testable, these are called Theorems.

You will find many subjective methods work to similar principles i.e. theorems. They obviously work but cannot be tested in retrospect.

For instance "expectancy" cannot be proven forward in time, but obviously it is mathematically sound.

 

[professor_frink]

I think the whole point of science it to be objective.

Agreed.
So how can this guy be seen to be objective, when he's critical of methods that he can't test?

If you have some kind of subjective ability that works for you but i lack, then thats great but of no use to anyone but yourself..

Over time, I'd venture a guess that almost anyone of average intelligence could do it. Maybe you should give it a go.

 

[onemind]

but obviously it is mathematically sound.

How is it obvious? If past prices have zero effect on future prices there is zero way to test the probablities of certain things happening making expectancy uncalculatable.

Like i said, if you have a working system that you cant explain, that is great for you. But good luck writing an unexplainable book but you wont need to since your system works and you will be rich soon..

 

[onemind]

Over time, I'd venture a guess that almost anyone of average intelligence could do it. Maybe you should give it a go.

In my experience, working systems aren't for sale and people aren't keen to share them, especially with an un sociable prick like me

 

[professor_frink]

In my experience, working systems aren't for sale and people aren't keen to share them, especially with an un sociable prick like me

I don't trade with a "system" as you'd probably define it. It's a combination of some of the things that the author of that book describes as 'worse than wrong', and some things that he would be able to prove scientifically don't work, and has some other things thrown in that are pretty well gut feel.

Combined, it's one very subjective set of principles that I trade with, but one I think could be taught. To some people

 

[onemind]

Sounds good I can be open minded enough to try it out if you want to pm the method.

Do you think it will keep working when the market changes? Or could it just be the result of a bull market?

 

[professor_frink]

Sounds good I can be open minded enough to try it out if you want to pm the method.

The way I trade isn't uncommon, there is information all over the net, I mentioned some of the methods I use on this site on the spi trading thread.

Do you think it will keep working when the market changes? Or could it just be the result of a bull market?

I'd be lying if I said I knew the answer to that From my subjective understanding of the markets, I'm going to say yes, it should be fine. Ultimately time will tell.

 

[yogi-in-oz]

In my experience, working systems aren't for sale and people aren't keen to share them .....

Hi onemind,

Given the enormous amount of time and effort, that goes into reseaching,
testing and documenting a reliable and profitable system ... why would you
think anybody should share them with you for free, anyway ...???

What possible reason could there be, except out of pure altruism ???

=====

That aside, there's no better indicator than a price chart to show
market SENTIMENT, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with
price, itself.

Truth is, many people on this forum have seen Gann's astrology
beat the pants off the EW crowd and the fundamentalists ... and
frequently, astroanalysis performed on individual stocks will reveal
some very accurate turn dates.

So, while your title may be tougue-in-cheek, you may want to test
some astroanalysis, on any ASX, NZSX Dow or S&P stock, for the
year ahead .....

..... then have proponents of the other methods, post their analysis
on the same stock ... then, let's see what happens over the next year.

And to be more than fair, you can designate which stock is to be
analyzed, for this test ... yes???

have a great weekend all

paul

P.S. ..... regarding bible astrology, Gann did not put more
than 150 bible references in TTTTA, for no reason ... and
it was the Pythagorean Jews in Alexandra, who translated
the Septaguint, from Hebrew into Greek ... so, for those
with a mathematical bent, they will very soon pick up
the Pythagorean's agenda, making the Bible a GOOD book
to study, as well.

 

[onemind]

Given the enormous amount of time and effort, that goes into reseaching,
testing and documenting a reliable and profitable system ... why would you
think anybody should share them with you for free, anyway ...???

I wouldnt and that is my whole point. If people enter an academic debate about whether t/a works or not in spite of ample evidence disproving it the only way to prove it would be to show a working system hence my skeptisism about professor sharing his. And i was right, he shared nothing except for vague descriptions that are useless. Its funny how nobody ever takes me up on that offer

So, while your title may be tougue-in-cheek, you may want to test
some astroanalysis, on any ASX, NZSX Dow or S&P stock, for the
year ahead .....

No thanks

 

[stoxclimber]

One thing to note is that to many academics, EMH is a RELIGION, in the ~1970s it was hereitical to question the EMH..I didn't bother to find out this author's background, but one should keep in mind that EMH proponents are not necessarily presenting unbiased opinions.

 

[chops_a_must]

Exactly, it is worse than wrong because it is based on zero information therefore making it "magic" just like alot of human thinking before science. If you cant test it it means it is based on superstition, making it no different to god, religion, and black magic. I dont know about you but i need more than blind faith before betting my life savings making tech/as little more than gamblers at vegas.

I thought the book was excellent. Just the primer on poppers philosophy of science and clarity of thought is worth it but you really dont need to read a whole book to find out that t/a is nonsense do you?

I think you are abusing pretty important work.

In Popper's philosophy, he clearly states that science comes from such things as "magic" and "myths". After all, there wasn't such a thing as an elipse until about 1500.

The point is that tech/a is PROBABALISTIC, and it can be falsified. Therefore it IS scientific.

Tech/a is a valid technique and SP movements etc. are not random because the limits of the properties or frequencies are not absolutely free.

 

[onemind]

One thing to note is that to many academics, EMH is a RELIGION, in the ~1970s it was hereitical to question the EMH..I didn't bother to find out this author's background, but one should keep in mind that EMH proponents are not necessarily presenting unbiased opinions.

I think you will find he is not aan EMH proponent and if you read the quotes you will see he speaks against it which is what i meant by the comment:

Ignore the EMH stuff, that is just my uni brainwashing.

If anything, t/a's use the EMH as the explanation that patterns are created by market inefficiencies..

 

[onemind]

Hi Chops,

All i'm saying is that if there were patterns that had decent probability then one would be found as a certainty under rigorous backtesting yet none are found.

All you have are assumptions with no facts.

 

[onemind]

The point is that tech/a is PROBABALISTIC, and it can be falsified. Therefore it IS scientific

The flying spaghetti monster can be falsified but it doesnt make flying spaghetti monsters scientific..

Its the same old story with t/a's. Their only defence is the same old, "poo hoo, more academic drivel". I know it works because it feels right. Cant prove it though just like god so i'll keep praying..

 

[chops_a_must]

Hi Chops,

All i'm saying is that if there were patterns that had decent probability then one would be found as a certainty under rigorous backtesting yet none are found.

All you have are assumptions with no facts.

A big part of the problem, fundamentally at least, is that there is no consensus with what the word "probability" actually means.

Is the last years data an assumption?

The probabilities of outcomes when rolling a dice are easy to work out. But naturally, the bigger the numbers, the larger the variables, the larger the probability limits.

The XAO opening at -500 on Monday is random. It opening anywhere between 0 and I don't know, 15,000, is not. There is at least one limit there, therefore, the next open on the XAO cannot be fully random. However, the placement of figures between the 0 and 15,000, would be random. Just as the sequence of rolls on a dice is, as the probabilities of each roll remain the same.

 

[markrmau]

For instance "expectancy" cannot be proven forward in time, but obviously it is mathematically sound.

That is where statistics comes to the rescue when used properly.

Statistics can tell us the probability a result (eg positive expectancy) is real, and the probability we could have obtained the result by chance.

Unfortunately the number of people who truly understand statistics is small. This is especially true among professions where statistical analysis is the most important - medicine. The level knowledge is depressingly low.

 

[onemind]

A big part of the problem, fundamentally at least, is that there is no consensus with what the word "probability" actually means.

Is the last years data an assumption?

The probabilities of outcomes when rolling a dice are easy to work out. But naturally, the bigger the numbers, the larger the variables, the larger the probability limits.

The probabilities are will it go up, or will it go down.

And there is no way of knowing which way it will go until it happens. There is not a pattern in the world that can predict it enough times to be profitable long term. If there was, there would be a ton of gazillionaires getting rich off the reliable compound interest from their reliable system. What your saying is finding something with a greater probability of going your way in essence, removing risk and obtaining unlimitied rewards. There is no such systems and these probabilities you think you can work out are unattainable with historic data.

Show me one pattern that has a statistacally relevent probability and i will eat my hat..