Classical thechanalysis doesn't work any more. What works, maybe quantum? - page 12
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Buyers and sellers have the same number of buyers and sellers (according to their price), and as many buyers as sellers. There are simply sellers and buyers on different terms: those who offer a deal at their price and those who agree to it. This is the case for almost any trade, even on "Iz Ruk v Ruk" listings. Those who offer the deal create liquidity - usually limit orders, those who agree create a mover by absorbing liquidity - these are market orders and stop orders (in essence also on the market). The price moves upwards when the limit sale is swallowed by market buyers. That is, there are more buyers in the market than sellers in the limits. Clearly seen in the stock market or ECN. On quoted markets the market maker creates some liquidity himself.
>> Now at least one post, which corresponds to reality, I would add that the price moves not because the volumes are different as many people think and get confused.
Yes, you don't have to explain anything. Never to anyone. It's all superfluous. Much more sensible, with the skill of a village agitator, to start the subject with a manifesto. Good riddance, dear comrade!
Why, I see. I've pointed out to you twice what's unclear and why it's unclear. You ignore the clarifying questions.
The simplest thing, about the source of the data, puts you on the spot. That's strange. And you don't want to dispel your suspicions.
Judging by how this thread develops, it will go far! And the intermediate result is impressive. I understand you brought it here from somewhere. It didn't even start here, the bottom line.
And the goal is blissful, yes. Developing a market theory is sound. By the way, have you tried using the search engine? Here on the forum. Not to mention the little-known google search engine.
You probably only read your own posts? And you do not see the answers. And the speed at which you create posts and ask questions, you probably have no time to think and comprehend what you've read.
And as for the results, I only made them based on the discussion in this thread.
Actually, thechanalysis has worked, is working and will continue to work for as long as the market has existed. Classical ones included. You just have to know how to use it. But forecasting, in the common sense of analysts, has never worked, does not work and is not going to work... So, this subject cannot be developed either single-handedly or jointly... Time patterns (or series) work, yes, but also within the framework of ordinary RIGHT NOW analysis.
Of course, just my humble...
And yes and no.
With TA everything that has already happened is well explained, and we can't know the future yet, all the more by the methods of classical TA... So how does one build a trade? We forecast the movement and targets and then we place orders. There should be some basic methods to make a forecast with more than 50% probability. Otherwise we may do without TA, but flip a coin and 50% probability is in our pocket.
=====
Everything is changing and the market is also subject to development and mutation. All these processes could be explained by market theory.
Gentlemen theorists, help traders and investors.
Both yes and no.
Everything that has already happened is well explained with TA, but we can't know the future yet, much less with classical TA methods...
??? Maybe you should study classical TA in the first grade and then argue about series, quanta (?), steady states, synergy, etc.?
You have already been told a hundred times: TA serves to determine these or those states of the market in the present! And then the conclusions are made. If you do not know how to analyse the present, then it is your illiteracy problem. I am not even talking about the conclusions.
Tell me, do you have to get soaked to the skin or wait until it ends to understand that it's raining? Do you also live according to the left side of the chart? Have you tried living in the present?
Once again, the problem is not TA, but how you understand/use it. Judging by your words (I especially liked the one about the future) you don't understand ANYTHING about TA, why it is needed and how to use it.
Go to school.
However, maybe you're not happy that TA doesn't "see" the future. Yes, it doesn't. And neither does anything else.
Then make a branch like this: Since TA can't see the future, I'm inventing a time machine. Who has any ideas?
Only, I'm afraid this thread will be moved to another forum for twenty people. Invent there. Under the supervision of a doctor.
You probably only read your own posts? You don't see the answers. And the speed with which you create posts and ask questions, you probably don't have time to think and comprehend what you've read.
As for the results, I've made them only on the basis of the discussion in this thread.
You did not give an answer as to what data was used. You wrote that it was not prices and that it was not tick volumes. I informed you that there is simply nothing else on the market. Therefore your results are questionable.
Simply put, I think you are either lying or don't understand what you are doing (even at the level of the data used).
Classic TA doesn't work. If only you knew how many times I have heard it from the lips of beginners who have read (not a fact!) something, tried the indicators and did not succeed.
It's your classic TA that doesn't work. Everything works for me. If you can't play classical instruments (violin, balalaika), it doesn't mean they are not musical instruments. Such statements are usually made by those who simply DO NOT understand what TA is and what to expect from it. They expect a miracle of prophecy for some reason. A known misconception. TA has never done this kind of crap. Especially classical.
Mm-hmm. Join me if you think it's not working. It's going to be an undergrowth club. Well, that would be a useful education. All the maitreneurs sit in their reservation and don't astonish the normal public with their revelations.
So I support the idea. Join in, gentlemen. Join in.
Start the list of those who think TA doesn't work: Sharpe, Markowitz, Miller, Black, Scholz - all Nobel laureates, Traynor, Cox, Ross, Rubenstein, Fama and French. And these are just the world-renowned founding classics who have a huge number of followers. I would like to join this club, but I'm not old enough yet.
Start the list of those who think TA doesn't work: Sharpe, Markowitz, Miller, Black, Scholz - all Nobel laureates, Traynor, Cox, Ross, Rubenstein, Fama and French. And these are just the world-renowned founding classics who have a huge number of followers. I would like to join this club, but I'm not old enough yet.
They are mathematicians, not traders. They are not very good traders, as practice shows. But that's OK. If you look at the value of the prize as a degree of recognition, then what is the Noble's measly millions compared to the billions.
They are mathematicians, not traders. They are not very good traders, as practice shows. But that's OK. If we look at the prize money as the degree of recognition, then what are those paltry millions compared with billions?
So...? "If Comrade Warrant Officer says crocodiles fly, then they fly, but only low and low". So the TA doesn't work for mathematicians, but it does for non-mathematicians?
I haven't looked at his tax returns, but from what I hear Black had his own hedge fund, kind of successful. Here's a history of the ups and downs of his fellow Scholz - here - not a childish trading fellow at all.
The original post by Swinosaurs was about "underlings and mithrophanes" who deny TA, I gave a list of members. Or rather just the very beginning of a very long list.
Update: Black was a partner at Goldman Sachs, an organisation not known for theoretical developments.
timbo писал(а) >>
{...} I haven't looked at his tax returns, but as far as I know, Black has his own hedge fund, which seems to be successful. Here's a history of the ups and downs of his comrade Scholz - not a childish trading buddy at all. {...}
Of course, Taleb didn't write about him, but let's compare the facts:
Scholz. Made 40% on a billion. Drained 4.6 billion on the Eastern/Russian crisis.
Taleb: Trailer made and then lost many times that much on the Russian crisis.
.
Hmm... and Scholz has Russian roots! After he blew 4.6 billion, they gave him a 4.5 billion fund,
which made 9.4% of its profits in 2007. But a 38% loss in 2008.
After seeing those results, he's invited to advise a 100 billion dollar fund.