Attention:

>inb4 you're some elliott wave fag
>inb4 you can even tell us what is on a standard comex terminal

what I'll never understand is why the line on chart drawing stuff is combined with the moving averages times 100000 stuff
they seem like two distinct things

Elliott wave is an example of TA and it doesn’t work.

TA works though, just ask PTJ. Even a lot of people on Wall Street who use fundamental analysis most of the time will use TA occasionally.

Sorry if you don't actually have the discipline to learn TA and stick to it.

To believe that TA works, you would need there to be EVIDENCE

>Even a lot of people on Wall Street who use fundamental analysis most of the time will use TA occasionally.
LOL at you talking about "Wall Street" like it's only filled with the smartest people in the world. You clearly don't know anybody who works on Wall Street.

>he isn't solving the QM harmonic oscillator by hand for every trade to make guaranteed gains

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/120/38003

>s-show me m-muh evidence
Why would I spoonfeed you a TA strategy that I might have spent months-years developing, backtesting and forward testing just to prove a point?

Faggot.

t. junior analyst washout

1. You haven’t done that
2. What I say in the Op doesn’t apply to indepedent research, since if you fdiscover something yourself and the whole market doesn’t know it’s possible to have edge

>another 'quantum' invention that avoids comparisons to the actual state of the art

Bollinger Bands is kinda good

>1. You haven’t done that
And you know this how?

Then you know that you have no business using Wall Street trader practices as a way to establish credibility for anything.

>the actual state of the art

being?

and on a serious note the quantum harmonic oscillator formalism has existed for ages and its one of the first models you learn in any babby's first qm course. hardly a "quantum x" meme

>being this new
I was calling you a junior analyst washout, ya muppet.

...

all of the *arch type of models generally outperform the ones they chose as a baseline

t. brainlet

Using indicators that have been tried and tested for years by professional traders and are still used to this day make you a gambler hurrrrr durrrrrrr

running average/momentum strategies and support levels are experimentally verified

that is, strategies where you can backtest using numbers sometimes work

>tried and tested
Source? By that I mean some hard evidence they work.

OP here. I should clarify that I work for a very successful trading firm and nobody uses TA that is publicly available.

>I'm dumb but I won't accept that so really everyone else is wrong

Oh. I'm not.

You say you work for a successful trading firm but you can't backtest a combination of indicators yourself?

lol ok, sage

OP, they are called INDICATORS, not CERTAINTIES.

All the analyses you can do are just interpretations of the data given. They are indicators of what MIGHT happen in the future.

And yes, because of the complexity, it is hard to predict the future. But it's not like these analyses are stupid, if you actually learn about them, you will see that all of them have some deep thinking built into them.

When all comes to all, it's just an analysis of some given data that people use as indicators. And to my knowledge, the analyses are pretty accurate at analyzing the data given to them, which is also their only job basically.

I could back test them. The thing is, the chances that an indicator that is available to the public for several years works is so low that we don’t waste our time on it.

By works I mean have a higher probability than normal of price going in the predicted direction

>Check daily RSI
>If below 50, buy coin at low and strong support level
>baghold if I must
>Sell at resistance above my buy-in price.

Wow that was easy. Not sure why people overthink things.

You are the dumbest cunt in all of burger land

Literally a burger for a brain

TA works

web.mit.edu/people/wangj/pap/LoMamayskyWang00.pdf

> Table VII shows that for NYSE/AMEX
stocks, five of the 10 patterns-HS, BBOT, RTOP, RBOT, and DTOP-yield statistically significant test statistics, with p-values
ranging from 0.000 for RBOT to 0.021 for DTOP patterns.

But my strategy consistently makes me profits even in bear markets like this. What is your response to that op?

If you’re using technical analysis you found online, it probably doesn’t work.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

You have completely misunderstood what these analyses are meant for.

Sorry, you have misunderstood how they are(should be) used, is what I meant.

You guys are literally retarded, professional BANK traders/market makers use support/resistance levels and MACD/VWAP etc.

vedic astrology

Imagine actually believing this

If enough people on the market believe in TA, then TA is a valid method of predicting market, you dumb fuck. It is a self fulfilling prediction.

I work for a prop trading firm that makes lots of money. banks aren't as smart as us but I doubt they are stupid enough to do that

bear in mind though banks don't have that much prop trading activities anymore.

This is wrong and actually, the opposite is true.

imagine RSI was a valid indicator. that is, lets say if RSI being below 30 indicated stock was too cheap and should rise.

then what happens if everyone knows this? when RSI gets to 30, the fastest people buy, and RSI gets back up to 50. so then slower people start buying at 35, then 40 and then 45 to compete. ultimately, because the signal worked and everybody knew about it, it stopped working.

and lets say everybody buys once something hits a trendline or heads and shoulder indicator. well
1. you probably aren't fast enough to compete
2. so everybody bought because it hit this indicator/ now what? everybody will soon after sell because they have no reason to hold the stock. overall demand didn't increase, in this hypothetical scenario the fastest people to buy/sell would make money from the slowest people to buy/sell.

to give an example of this

lets say a technical analysis indicator says that stock is a buy. there are 5 technical analysts (A, B, C, D, ranked in order of speed) and then there is the rest of the market who is not using TA

Stock is at 10 and A buys there, and it goes up to 10.25. B is late to the game but still wants in and buys and stock goes to 10.5. C is even later and buys and stock goes to 10.75. finally D fomos in at 11.

now what? there is no extra demand from the market who is not using technical analysis. So A will want to take his profits, he sells down to 10.75 making his money. B then sells down to 10.5 also making a little bit. C sells down to 10.25 at a loss and D sells down to 11 making a large loss. So ultimately, A and B won and C and D lost but no money was made by TA overall. in order for TA to make money you would need extra demand from the non TA using market

4 technical analysts*

>not reading the study

It is an example of survivorship bias.

You said technical analysis was found to work in some indicators on one exchange. What about the other exchanges?

true and underrated statement. Most plebs don't know anything about the application of astrology in trading.

correct, the market actually got more efficient starting from the late 80s

this is because people actually programmed strats

it worked on the two exchanges that they ran tests on, the other one being Nasdaq

Nasdaq too small for you?

read the fucking study

should have been greentext
the way you said it means it refer to yourself
stop trying to fit in by calling others newfags

>efficient market theory
>especially in crypto
TA is retarded but this particular argument against it is similarly dumb

just a small example with pleb-tier astrology: blue lines are exact geocentric aspects and pink ones are heliocentric. Observe how ETH/USD reacts to these aspects. The big drop yesterday at 1AM EST started after a cluster of geocentric aspects with Moon opposition Mars as final trigger for the downtrend. Learn financial astrology anons