|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Very insightful commentary --
I've had a similar hypothesis for many years about what "works" in
technical analysis. First of all, you have to take into consideration that
only a small fraction of the people who attempt trading in the Markets will
ever be successful on a long-term basis -- and only a fraction of those
people will choose technical analysis as a means to reach their goal.
Along the road, many TA techniques will be studied. Most novitiate traders
will discover Moving Averages, MACD, RSI, Stochastics, Fibonacci, etc.,
etc. -- but none will prove to be very useful and all will reveal their
flaws if studied carefully. If they hang in there long enough and can
sustain and conquer the financial and psychological damage that is a normal
part of the learning process -- at some point, "how Markets move" and
"trade" will start to make some sense.
If they've still chosen to remain an ally with TA at that point, whatever
technical frame of reference they're currently following and have the best
"feel" for will become their primary frame of reference.
At that point, it won't matter which technique they've chosen because their
ability to be a successful trader will already be intact and they will only
use that particular technique as a reference against which to explain their
"methods", if in fact, an explanation is even possible...
__________________
At 02:40 AM 06/21/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>There are so many techniques out there. Pick whatever works for you. The
>key is to find something that you can master, study it thoroughly, and keep
>working with it enough to discover when to buy, when to sell and when to sit
>out. If you're just starting out, the most important thing to learn is not
>to lose your stake before you learn to trade. Of course, that's important
>after you learn to trade too.
>
>...so put me down for "No but they're not worthless"
>
>Kent (still learning)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>How many here use Fibonacci ratios as a part of their routine analysis
>techniques or inclusive in their systems? And how many reject Fibonacci
>ratios as being worthless, and for what reason? or reasons.
>
>Monte
|