/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.14830920]

Why do people insist TA doesn't work? All it takes is a cursory glance at a good trader's charts to see that there are patterns in the way that markets move that can be analyzed and exploited, yet every time TA gets brought up you get tons of people saying it's astrology tier, mentioning studies on how it doesn't work, saying it's for brainlets and markets are purely random etc. I really don't get it.

The thing is, I don't actually have any evidence to prove that it does work, but that's just because I don't keep good records. In my experience there are certain places that the market very often reacts to like major EMA's, ichimoku cloud, daily, weekly and monthly closes, fib levels. Obviously it doesn't work 100% but it works often enough that the hate TA gets seem completely unjustified.

Meanwhile it seems like people are always clamoring to explain price movements with fundamental factors. Look at Trump's recent tweets about Bitcoin. When he first tweeted them, nothing out of the ordinary happened, then days later when Bitcoin finally crashed, every major media outlet was saying that the market was reacting to Trump's tweets despite the fact that TA had been pointing to a correction for a week.

Is TA just something that NPC's physically can't into?

[Anonymous No.14830933]

>>14830920
if TA worked you wont be posting here poor nigger

[Anonymous No.14830941]

TA for crypto doesn't work b.c of market manipulation. Pump and dumps, whales, memes are all unpredictable.

[Anonymous No.14830948]

DUDE LMAO
MY LINES CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE BRO

[Anonymous No.14830964]

>>14830941
On the contrary, it seems to work best here because it's pure speculation. Works less well in stocks and commodities where there actual fundamental factors in play

[Anonymous No.14830975]

>>14830941
This. Crypto has a tendency to start bleeding or pumping far too excessively because of manipulation and/or news. I find TA only to work during very quiet periods when coins trade in a range. Even then, your analysis is swing and miss far too iften for it to be reliable. Crypto is a new asset, to imagine the analysis developed for boomer stocks/forex/bonds will seamlessly transfer over to crypto is far too much of a stretch. If the crypto market gets regulated, I have no doubt solid TA will be developed rapidly.

[Anonymous No.14830996]

Most people just don't have an IQ high enough to interpret charts or use Tradingview and the only times they have ever been exposed to TA is from people who were wrong.

[Anonymous No.14831013]

>>14830920
If predictive software was truly effective at predicting markets, the person who invented it would have never sold it. He would be sitting on his mega yatch right now letting his software make billions of dollars for him.

[Anonymous No.14831020]

This was posted a week ago.
We've had bobos calling for 8k for 2 weeks now.
If you want me to believe in TA make a prediction thats actually right.

[Anonymous No.14831035]

>>14830941
>>14830948
>>14830975

I wasn't going to do this but here is my current Bitcoin chart. Look at it. I haven't drawn a new line on it since last month, I swear on my whole family. Yet price still seems to be reacting to my magical lines. Is this just coincidence or what

[Anonymous No.14831036]

>>14830920
I have always insisted that TA doesnt work on CRYPTO, as opposed to saying that TA doesnt work at all. Either way I find TA fags to be annoying and its funny when their predictions get BTFO because they went full retard and completely ignored fundamental factors

[Anonymous No.14831051]

>>14831020
I was short before the crash and I convinced several others on here to go short as well. I mean, I don't know at what point you'll believe TA is a good tool to use for this stuff

[Anonymous No.14831054]

>>14830996
>drawing arbitrary lines on a chart that connect cherrypicked points together
>high IQ
When TA works, they don't call it TA anymore.

TA is for brainlets, plain and simple.

[Anonymous No.14831056]

>>14830941

Isn't it in a manipulator's best interest to follow these patterns themselves, though? They stand to gain way more if they follow the path of least resistance and simply act as an amplifier to the natural course of the market.

[Anonymous No.14831061]

>>14831035
Okay then if TA is so accurate what's the bottom?

[Anonymous No.14831070]

>>14831035
Is that fibs and ganns? Why not post whole chart?

[Anonymous No.14831071]

>>14831035
Do it for the next week.

[Anonymous No.14831088]

>>14831056
sure, if they were all working in conjunction, but thats not how it works. there are no patterns, there are no signs. each variable is independent

[Anonymous No.14831109]

How do i learn TA? I have lost a lot of money on crypto so I'd love to try and make it back but i just don't know what to read to get started

[Anonymous No.14831111]

>>14830996
you don't need a high iq, you need an above average one i swear
austists get fooled looking to deep into indicators and smaller timeframes
the brainlets will disregard it and say it's magic or manipulation
the average iq will zoom out and investigate every timeframe and find a pattern then draw simple lines
it is that easy
draw line 3 in yourself that's what you'll see on the charts from now on a similar pattern to before just much larger

[Anonymous No.14831118]

>>14830920
TA redpill on UND?

[Anonymous No.14831132]

>>14830920
I implemented my trading bot strategy based on TA and it consistently turns profit so I guess it works. But I can't imagine following all that stuff manually and making trades by myself.

[Anonymous No.14831134]

>>14831061
Doesn't work like that. Best I can do personally is point to price levels where we can most likely get reactions.

>>14831070
No, those are just high time frame closes and trendlines

>>14831071
It's probably already done for next week, but yeah, I'll probably have to erase everything and start anew pretty soon.

[Anonymous No.14831182]

>>14831132
How do people who think TA doesn't work even explain all the automated trading algorithms that dominate markets? Do they think these bots are just extremely lucky guessers lmao

[Anonymous No.14831197]

>>14831109
Most based analyst on YouTube is TradeDevil. Just don't pay too much mind to all the Elliot Wave stuff, even he admits it's often not worth the effort.

[Anonymous No.14831236]

>>14831182
They think it's AI which pretty much equals magic to them. The perpetual overhype about machine learning and AI by startups trying to scam venture capital to get funding made people think that machine learning and AI is literally computer capable of thinking and making decisions like a human, similar to sci-fi movies. It's fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.14831355]

TA is wrong sometimes and right sometimes due to random chance but TA fags will make excuses for why TA failed them. "I must have drawn this line wrong, I made a mistake" rather than TA itself is prone to failure

[Anonymous No.14831448]

>>14831197
Cheers anon, I'll be sure to watch some vids to get a better idea

[Anonymous No.14831565]

TA deniers and people who understand TA are two completely mutually exclusive groups of people.

[Anonymous No.14831752]

>>14831182

you're an idiot if you think profitably bots operate on 'TA'.

[Anonymous No.14831874]

>>14831752
What do they operate on

[Anonymous No.14831926]

>>14831874
Usually, some sort of heuristic that makes economic sense, and can be back-tested. E.g.

1) If the price of silver increases by X%, the value of a silver-mining corporation should increase by 1.13*X%.

2) If there was a sudden jump in the price of silver, and the price of a silver-mining corporation only increased by 0.94*X%, then buy the silver mining corporation.

The 1.13*X%, was arrived to by (human) analysis of the corporation's financial details. Of course, there are many trading strategies, but this is one that definitely exists.

TA is generally not used by sophisticated traders. Wall Street looks on it with disfavor.

[Anonymous No.14831960]

not gonna lie, I actually used TA to predict the bottom at 3K, and priced myself in there. While you are all here hoping for moons, I'm sitting here with my stack all comfy.

[Anonymous No.14831986]

>>14831565
TA has been conclusively disproved in the stock market.

I have never seen any data on TA in crypto markets.

[Anonymous No.14831990]

>>14831986
>TA has been conclusively disproved in the stock market.
It hasn't.

[Anonymous No.14832020]

>>14831926
There really aren't much financial details to speak of for bitcoin. What kinds of strategies would be used in crypto?

[Anonymous No.14832023]

>>14831990
It very much has. Seriously, read the academic literature on the subject.

[Anonymous No.14832044]

>>14832023
TA like chart patterns can't even be systematically identified much less proven/disproven

[Anonymous No.14832099]

>>14832023
I can't imagine it even being possible to disprove the types of TA that people use successfully. Besides I agree that the stock market is one of the worst places for TA. Crypto and forex being the best place for it, and commodities are best suited for long term trend following strategies

[Anonymous No.14832100]

>>14832020
If I was confident about any, I'd be using them myself.

If I was doing it, I'd probably be data mining the internet, and trying to find predictive trends. E.g. gauging how frequently the word "bitcoin" and buy-indicator/sell-indicator words, are used in the same sentence. The relative frequency of "buy bitcoin" and "sell bitcoin", for example. Or maybe the frequency of people discussing credit cards and bitcoin (credit cards are often used to deposit money on exchanges).

Then back-test it, to determine whether this data has successfully predicted changes in the price of bitcoin. If it worked in the past, and it sounds like it works in theory, then you have a decent strategy.

Of course, you'll need to know a lot of statistics. And if you data-mine the internet, you'll probably need some computer science background.

[Anonymous No.14832111]

>>14830920
because it’s a bs attempt by complete retarded people to explain something that can’t be explained. and to fool people and make money of course.

[Anonymous No.14832148]

>>14832044
iv'e found patterns in btc, bsv, xrp and link
am i smarter than everyone else?
it's not even hard to spot imo

[Anonymous No.14832163]

>>14832100
So you think the general sentiment on internet forums is a better indicator for trading than the data on a price chart?

[Anonymous No.14832166]

>>14832044
TA patterns can be successfully defined. Don't tell me that a head-and-shoulders trend is impossible to define.

And when the trends are defined, and back-tested, they don't work.

>>14832099
>I can't imagine it even being possible to disprove the types of TA that people use successfully.
Easy. Define the Technical Analyst's preferred pattern. Program it into a computer. Now back-test it. Does it create excess profits? In virtually all examples where this test has been done, it debunks TA. (In the stock market, at least).

And if the Technical Analyst says: "well, I can't program it into a computer", that's an excellent indicator that he's full of shit. A trading strategy that you cannot define? If someone believes that, I have a bridge to sell them

I've seen some studies about forex. I'm not going to necessarily claim that TA doesn't work there. But the data is mixed, and I'm skeptical.

[Anonymous No.14832171]

>>14832023
I would tell you of the academic literatute that shows TA does work but ad the saying goes "never smarten up a chump"

[Anonymous No.14832185]

>>14832163
you are fucked dude if you ask shit like this

the facts are no TA was ever right except the occasional lucky hits you also have for plane crashes etc.

[Anonymous No.14832245]

>>14832166
You'd come up with a shitload of "patterns" that no discretionary trader would call a H&S if you're doing it programmatically

[Anonymous No.14832258]

>>14832163
I'm not a crypto expert. So take my opinion with a grain of salt.

But yes, I'd rather look at general sentiment on internet forums. Of course, the best method would be to data-mine the internet forums, and see whether the data is predictive. If it isn't predictive, throw it out. If it is predictive, then use it.

If you use TA, you'd need to somehow "prove" that the patterns you're looking for "work". How will you do that, exactly? I'd recommend back-testing the correlation between your patterns, and price changes in bitcoin. Use the same procedure. If it is predictive, us it. If it isn't predictive, throw it out.

[Anonymous No.14832263]

astrology tier isn't good?

[Anonymous No.14832270]

>>14832166
I'm not a programmer but I can show you some extremely basic strategies that generate profit on bitcoin just using the tradingview backtester. The problem is that the market is constantly in flux, and what works now might not work by the time you generate some empirical data on it. I've personally seen a popular strategy go from working very well to being basically countered by the market in a very short amount of time. Somehow people figured out how to take advantage of other people using that strategy.

[Anonymous No.14832277]

>>14830920
I normally see people arguing about this when the TA guy refuses to acknowledge fundamental news pumps.

[Anonymous No.14832301]

>>14831926
>implying TA can't be back-tested
Don't talk about things you have no idea about.

[Anonymous No.14832347]

>>14832171
In the stock market?

>>14832245
Give a single chart to a technical analyst, and ask them if it has a H&S pattern. Then give the same chart to another technical analyst, and ask them if it has a H&S pattern. Often, they'll come to different conclusions.

It works the same way with computers. Subjective stuff is subjective.

Computers are generally better at recognizing mathematical patterns than humans. And since a chart is a mathematical pattern, a computer should be able to do almost anything TA-related that a technical analyst can do.

The fact that TA is somewhat subjective, doesn't mean it deserves protection from academic rigor. Lots of stuff is subjective, and difficult to fully study. But to the extent that we can study it, it is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.14832353]

>got rich off TA
>now learning astrology and reading religious texts

stay mad lads

[Anonymous No.14832355]

>>14832301
The only things you can hope to test are shit like moving averages, RSI based strategies, etc

When it comes to identifying shapes and shit that takes human discretion to read, no way

Brb gonna backtest wedge breakouts... now how do I find all wedges

[Anonymous No.14832364]

>>14832301
I never implied that, you retard. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.14832372]

>>14830941
TA is literally the only thing that matters in crypto

[Anonymous No.14832382]

>>14832347
Andrew Lo

You're wrong when you say quants don't use TA. They'll use anything that performs well statistically. Beauty about having programming ability is that you can really cut through the bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14832390]

>>14832355
Check the vol on a ma
Take swing high and swing low and draw a line
Break if one candle disrupts

Loop in a genetic env accross timeframe if you're the massive brainlet you appear to be

[Anonymous No.14832417]

>>14832355
>shit that takes human discretion to read
That's just nonsense technical analysts use to prevent people from examining their trading strategies, and finding out that they're nonsense.

But even so, we could totally back-test strategies. We could have a bunch of technical analysts look at charts, and determine whether a H&S pattern exists. Then we could see if their evaluation of a H&S correlates with future returns. It would be an expensive test, because we'd have to have a lot of people look at a lot of charts, but definitely possible.

[Anonymous No.14832423]

>>14832390
Right because a human would quit looking for a wedge if a wick touches it

[Anonymous No.14832424]

Elliot Waves (fibs and wave principle) for position entry and market direction and Ichimoku clouds for targets and areas of heavy support and resistance works like fucking magic tied in with RSI, only brainlets can’t see it

[Anonymous No.14832440]

MACD, apparently works well! Bitcoin to stable coin

[Anonymous No.14832443]

+ 90% of traders would lie if they knew they were being studied

[Anonymous No.14832453]

>>14832185
The thing that none of you fucking brainlets understand is that TA is not 100% always right oracle that makes no mistakes. It isn't and never was, never will be. It's often wrong, but the times it is wrong are less numerous than the times it is right. If you want TA to be those memelines that tell you when to make a single trade and earn x100 then you're a fucking idiot. TA gives you enough information to make sure that your gains are higher than your loses, and in the larger scale this makes you turn profit.

[Anonymous No.14832465]

>>14832423
A profitable one ? Sure pal.

[Anonymous No.14832468]

>>14832417
Why would anyone look at a chart if TA has no value
Steve Cohen says he looks at charts

[Anonymous No.14832472]

>>14832347
If you're talking about patterns like H&S, yeah, it's bullshit. Nobody I know that trades crypto uses that. If that's what the studies you mention are about, that explains a lot. I wonder if there are any studies on basic horizontal support/resistance levels.

>>14832372
This is what I keep telling people. There are barely any fundamentals. All there is is TA

[Anonymous No.14832503]

>>14832453
Yeah it's better than trading blindly in crypto

It's the idiots who espouse the weirder cranky stuff like Elliott Wave theory who piss me off. If their predictions are right, the theory gains credibility and if they're wrong then they themselves made a mistake in applying the theory, the theory remains flawless

Idiots

[Anonymous No.14832508]

>>14832382
I looked him up.

Here's the abstract from the first paper that came up.

>By comparing the unconditional empirical distribution of daily stock returns to the conditional distribution—conditioned on specific technical indicators such as head-and-shoulders or double-bottoms—we find that over the 31-year sample period, several technical indicators do provide incremental information and may have some practical value

In other words, even he isn't certain that technical analysis works. Notice the "may have some practical value". In other words, he believes that some technical analysis patterns are predictive, but is uncertain whether technical analysis can provide excess returns (after trading costs have been subtracted, presumably).

I'm still comfortable with my conclusions.

[Anonymous No.14832532]

>>14832100
>>14832258
Dude, you're full of shit. You sound like first year CS student that learned about data mining and thinks that he can predict the future by scanning twitter feed.

[Anonymous No.14832540]

if ta worked then an automated strategy could be designed
if an automated strategy could be designed then near infinity money could be achieved from nothing
there's no rags-to-riches ta billionaires, ergo meme lines don't work. qed
more anecdotally, there is no record of a single intelligent person who believes in ta, while low iq ta supporters are numerous
sure enough, you've got the hordes of retards here who tell you it works on the stock market. it works until it doesn't, much like martingale or russian roulette. google time preference then read black swan if you still don't understand, that book was literally written to explain the world to brainlets in their own language

[Anonymous No.14832541]

>>14832503
Thing is, nobody is going to teach a system that works. Any system that does work and becomes public quickly stops working

You have to discover your own TA and that's where programming skill helps

[Anonymous No.14832569]

>>14832468
>Why would anyone look at a chart if TA has no value
To .. see the chart? I mean, when a chart moves, usually there is a reason for it. Bad news about the stock, for example, is associated with downward movement in the chart. A chart gives you a history of how the market viewed recent news about the company. Examining the market consensus may help you evaluate the company.

TA is looking at a chart, and nothing else. Totally different thing.

[Anonymous No.14832573]

>>14832508
>technical indicators such as H&S and double bottom

Why are all the data scientists who could actually vindicate TA obsessed with these meme patterns? That's not what successful TA traders actually use!

[Anonymous No.14832615]

>>14832573
This.

[Anonymous No.14832625]

>>14832540
Yes there are no valuable quant funds ever lol. You have it all figured out anon.

[Anonymous No.14832628]

>>14832532
I specifically say

>If I was confident about any [trading strategy], I'd be using them myself
>Take my opinion with a grain of salt

I don't think my posts showed any kind of overconfidence.

>Dude, you're full of shit.
Why?

[Anonymous No.14832671]

>>14832573
Then what do they use?

[Anonymous No.14832682]

>>14832573
>>14832615
H&S and double bottom are/were commonly used indicators. Just because your particular colleagues don't use it, doesn't mean it isn't a common TA pattern.

[Anonymous No.14832712]

>>14832671
Ichimoku, ema, closes on high time frames, areas that price seems to interact with, long wicks (srs)

[Anonymous No.14832748]

>>14832671
Nobody is ever gonna tell you for free. I've spent 3 months perfecting my bot strategy on dry data before I moved to live trading.

[Anonymous No.14832772]

>>14832625
He was trolling, but

Technical Analysis =/= Quantitative Finance

They're totally different things.

[Anonymous No.14832783]

>>14832712
Had some good results with ichimoku, actually... but long wicks, really? Isn't that data after-the-fact? How does it help with prediction? Is it because volume never dies down immediately but rather slowly?

[Anonymous No.14832800]

>>14832682
Fair enough, but using patterns like that is wildly different from what I mean when I talk about TA. The fact that there were any positive results at all with regards to H&S and double-bottom is shocking to me.

[Anonymous No.14832821]

>>14832772
>theyre completely different things
Not really.

QA is just automated and backtested TA with automated FA thrown in.

I mean a lot of Quant strategies like mean reversion are just more mathematically rigorous versions of TA. Bollinger bands are considered "TA" now but at one point in the 1980s would've been considered QA because of the lack of charting libraries and programming/math skill necessary to implement.

[Anonymous No.14832846]

>>14832569
No one's looking at the actual historical lines of a chart to correlate it to news, they already know the news

Looking at a chart and evaluating it for momentum and mean reversion like pro discretionary traders do is not far off crypto gamblers and their meme lines. Some intraday trader at a prop firm/HF isn't busting out valuation models they're trading off gut instinct. If you're influenced by the shape of the charts you're basically doing TA whether you draw lines or not

[Anonymous No.14832922]

>>14832783
Generally long wicks are a sign that a reversal is probable. It might be because they signal that something was pumping (or dumping) and then suddenly started getting sold off (or bought up) within a short amount of time, meaning that the price reached a point where there weren't very many buyers (or sellers) left. Price reached a turning point. Works for me.

[Anonymous No.14832967]

>>14832821
These funds are running models all day with exchange data streaming in what do you think they're doing? It obviously has to do with charts or the equivalent in raw data

They throw out things like they use camera data to track how full retail parking lots are, weather data, etc. to throw people off. Those sound like infrequent or one time data science projects

[Anonymous No.14833033]

>>14832800
It isn't surprising that there are statistically significant results. Especially for less liquid stocks, with high bid/ask ratios.

I would be surprised, if the results could generate excess returns. That is, by following the strategy, you'll earn returns that can cover trading costs, and still make you a profit.

>>14832821
>QA is just automated and backtested TA with automated FA thrown in
Adding anything to TA, means it's not TA anymore. It's like adding meat to a vegan food. It's not vegan anymore.

TA - by definition - uses only price information, and nothing else. It's pure chart-reading. It you look at a chart, and you say "the market overreacted to the bad news", or your computer program reaches that conclusion, you aren't a chart-reader. You're an investor, who is incorporating the market's evaluation of the bad news into your decision.

>a lot of Quant strategies like mean reversion are just more mathematically rigorous versions of TA.
Again, mean reversion isn't chart-reading.

There really is a distinct group of people, who read charts, and only charts. Often, they categorically refuse to learn anything about the company. We call them "technical analysts". We need some English term to describe the "only charts, and nothing else" type of stock trader. And the term that gets used is "technical analyst".

The fact that mean reversion is incorporating historical price information into trading strategies, doesn't mean that QA overlaps with the "only charts, and nothing else", type of trader.

[Anonymous No.14833131]

>>14832846
>No one's looking at the actual historical lines of a chart to correlate it to news, they already know the news
But they don't know the market's reaction to the news. Should the stock have dropped 5%, or 20%? Did it the drop start before the bad news was officially announced?

Investors are not stupid. They want to know how the market responded to the news, because it's useful information, when valuing a company.

>Some intraday trader at a prop firm/HF isn't busting out valuation models they're trading off gut instinct.
There aren't very many traders who trade based purely on gut instinct. If nothing else, it's difficult to justify that behavior to a boss. Usually, you have to quantify your decision, and let the boss review it.

>Looking at a chart and evaluating it for momentum and mean reversion like pro discretionary traders do is not far off crypto gamblers and their meme lines.
Almost nobody on Wall Street "looks at a chart" to determine momentum or mean reversion. They typically use sophisticated statistical tools, which can determine these things much more accurately and precisely than visual inspection.

And they are in a totally different category from (most) crypto gamblers. It's the difference between the NBA, and your local pickup basketball game.

[Anonymous No.14833183]

>he doubts astrology

shiggle diggle

[Anonymous No.14833210]

>>14833033
But price action obviously factors partly into a lot of profitable strategies, so saying that looking at TA "doesn't work" seems dishonest. Price action/TA is a tool like any other

[Anonymous No.14833222]

>>14830920
TA works better for BTC markets, actually.

This is how I know we're about to re-test 2.8K.

Have fun!

(also, buy PNK, it should gain heavily against BTC soon)

[Anonymous No.14833272]

>>14833131
Wall Street firms hire traders distinct from quant/research and algo dev/SWE jobs, what do you think they do if all the work is in the models? exactly

[Anonymous No.14833297]

>>14833222
>2.8k

People like you are the reason TA gets made fun of. I don't know whether to thank you or tell you to fuck off.

Buy ONE

[Anonymous No.14833298]

>>14830964
This

[Anonymous No.14833322]

>>14833210
>so saying that looking at TA "doesn't work" seems dishonest
We call "chart-only" traders "technical analysts". That's the normal, English word. It refers to a specific school of thought. So saying that "TA doesn't work", is an accurate, and legitimate statement.

Saying "TA doesn't work", doesn't imply "data analysis, that incorporates price movement doesn't work".

It's like the difference between believing that a piece of cloth is magic, and can cure cancer. Versus believing that a piece of cloth can be used by a surgeon, to help in cancer-removal surgery. Two totally different uses, and two totally different approaches. And one is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.14833323]

>>14830920
Pure TA doesnt work because the market is a social game, many analysts are working with incomplete information (unless they have level 3 information), and volume is a wonky metric that doesn't paint a complete picture of how the social game is moving along (so even when you account for it, you might still mess up because a volume of 8 million with a price rise of $10 on one day can mean a totally different thing from a volume of 8 million with a price rise of $10 on another day, especially with algos playing). At best, you'll find a model that works for a brief time period that then stops working a few weeks down the road because its overfit to the data.

[Anonymous No.14833417]

>>14830920
just about every day there is at least one chart here that fails to predict where the price is going. it seems like TA is working AFTER the fact, but no one actually predicts it with certainty. it's hog wash and make belief totology. best thing to do is to know what's going to make it long term and keep dropping your extra cash in them, averaging while going up or down.

[Anonymous No.14833421]

>>14833322
>We call "chart-only" traders "technical analysts". That's the normal, English word. It refers to a specific school of thought. So saying that "TA doesn't work", is an accurate, and legitimate statement.
You are playing semantics games. Most people do not use the term "technical analysis" this way. Most people who refer to "TA" refer to the tool itself and not the practitioners who use it to the exclusion of other information.

If I say "we are going down because my TA says so and also macroeconomic factors and the blockchain explorer says whales are sending their bags to binance", me using the word "TA" does not imply I am discarding the macroeconomic factors. That's absurd.

[Anonymous No.14833449]

>>14833272
>what do you think they do if all the work is in the models?
Depends on what they're trading.

For less liquid stuff, usually, they come into work, the boss tells them to sell/buy something, and so they call potential customers on the phone, and try to negotiate the best price possible. Usually, when they try to buy/sell something illiquid, they're talking to some other guy, with a similar job, at a similar financial institution.

For more liquid stuff, they're often basing their trade off of some information. They got a tip from a reliable source that the company exceeded their earning estimates, or they suspect that a large buyer is accumulating shares. Traders often aren't using fundamental analysis, but it's not technical analysis, either.

Wall Street existed before computers and algorithms dominated trading, and chart-reading has never been the dominant strategy of traders. In the early days, they didn't even make charts! They just looked at the price.

[Anonymous No.14833510]

>>14833449
Traders go through a heavy math/probability filter they're not getting hired to answer phones LOL

[Anonymous No.14833637]

>>14830941
whales follow ta

[Anonymous No.14833646]

>>14833421
>Most people do not use the term "technical analysis" this way.
Just read this thread. They aren't using "technical analysis" plus other data. They're just looking at a chart, getting an intuitive feeling, and making a buy/sell decision based on that feeling.

>Most people who refer to "TA" refer to the tool itself and not the practitioners who use it to the exclusion of other information.
Firstly, it refers to both the practitioners and the tools used by the practitioners. Technical Analysis (the tools) vs. Technical Analyst (the practitioner).

Secondly, most people do use it to the exclusion of other information. For example, look at OP:

>All it takes is a cursory glance at a good trader's charts to see that there are patterns in the way that markets move that can be analyzed and exploited
He's saying that TA works, in isolation, without any other data incorporated into the trading decision. It's pure chart-reading. This is a genuinely common sentiment.

>If I say "we are going down because my TA says so and also macroeconomic factors and the blockchain explorer says whales are sending their bags to binance"
Firstly, nobody says stuff like that. See OP. That's how people usually talk about TA.

Secondly, your approach is a weird amalgamation of several factors. An actual Quant would probably start by doing one correlative analysis, that incorporates several variables from macroeconomic data, and price movement data, in predicting the price movement of a stock. That's a totally different analysis that just "looking at a chart" or "looking at a moving average", or whatever.

Quants are not really doing TA, or chart-reading. They're doing sophisticated data analysis, with price data as one (or more) of the variables. It's like the difference between reading tea leaves, and analyzing the chemical composition of the tea.

[Anonymous No.14833665]

>>14833510
>they're not getting hired to answer phones
So who negotiates the trades of illiquid securities? Do you have some secretary making $15/hour determine the price of a trade in an illiquid security.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch77I8xoUMs

[Anonymous No.14834046]

>>14833449
>Traders often aren't using fundamental analysis, but it's not technical analysis, either.
this is true of the brokers, banks and exchanges. they trade on what is essentially insider info and do all kinds of private backroom deals because they know some secret and can leverage it.
ta is mostly for blind traders who arent in the loop. basically retail and bots.

[Anonymous No.14834679]

>>14830920
It takes intelligence therefore most think it's more than mumbo jumbo. TA works.

[Anonymous No.14834864]

>>14830920
Because they expect it to magically make them money with no effort on their part.
They don't realize TA isn't supposed to work on its own, only when used in conjunction with other methods.