|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I agree that probability is the key. One can then try and put a
percentage on that probability to create a comfort and attention
factor. Lower percentage - more attention, tighter stops and vice-
versa.
However, I do believe that much TA is really psychology at work. It
isn't necessarily that whatever pattern may or may not work some
percent of the time, but the fact that x number of people believe
that it will. Once there is some acknowledgement or recognition of
the pattern, then the believers "probably" <g> will jump in and trade
based on the pattern making it come true.
It might be fun to conduct a study/contest where known charts/data
were assembled, 2 or 3 months back from current cut off and then the
participants would have to predict what happened. Obviously, this
would have to be with less well-known stocks so that no one had an
idea of the outcome. Be interesting to see how many would be correct
in predicting a known outcome with any consistency based strictly on
TA.
JW
--- In realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Steven W. Poser" <swp@xxxx> wrote:
> Exactly. In fact, the MTA's definition includes exactly that word -
> probability. However, you can still have a forecast, based on
probability of
> past actions, and that forecast would be wrong. But, you would be
out,
> usually, before the fundamental type would be.
>
> Steve
>
> ---
> Steven W. Poser, President
> Poser Global Market Strategies Inc.
> http://www.poserglobal.com
> swp@xxxx
> Tel: 201-995-0845
> Fax: 201-995-0846
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Rollins [mailto:kentr@x...]
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 2:31 PM
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RT] Why rats and pigeons might make better investors
than
> people do
>
>
> I thought the whole point of TA was to find probabilities, not
certainties.
> Any good technician will say that there is a likelyhood of the
market doing
> something, but he will be ready to change his mind if the market
gives off
> other indications. So with any technician, you can certainly find
places
> where his call was wrong, but that doesn't mean he sank with the
ship.
>
> Kent
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Earl Adamy <eadamy@xxxx>
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sunday, October 29, 2000 8:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [RT] Why rats and pigeons might make better investors
than
> people do
>
>
> Even "wrong" can be difficult to measure. A technician has
guideposts
> along the way to tell him/her when the price analysis is wrong and a
> position should be closed or reversed. Technicians commenting for
the
> media are not generally given the opportunity to say "... but if x
price
> is broken, we will exit/reverse the position." Thus the "track
records"
> shown for each guest on CNBC represents only a "buy and hold"
strategy,
> not the real world. I suppose there are some analysts who would hold
> through some of the 75%+ draw downs shown, but most would have the
sense
> to get out somewhat earlier.
>
> Earl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven W. Poser" <swp@xxxx>
> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 6:11 AM
> Subject: RE: [RT] Why rats and pigeons might make better investors
than
> people do
>
>
> > As for the CNBC comment, I suspect if the study looked at the % of
> > technicians that were wrong compared to the % offundamental
analysts
> that
> > were wrong, they'd get a different result.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/152424/_/972862209/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
|