The two authors of "Technical Analysis of Stock Trends" which many call it "The Bible of Technical Analysis" are: Robert D. Edwards John John Magee You may expect these two guys earn a lot of money from market since they wrote the Bible of TA? Let's see their outcome: http://knowledgebase.mta.org/?fusea...esourceID=13D415EC-EE10-3BCF-3447AE4BADFB8263 Robert D. Edwards John: "This partnership lasted less than a decade before Edwards left in 1951 to become a high school science teacher in South Carolina." Very likely Robert found out that kept writing "bible" would not help him make more money than being a high school teacher so he left John Magee and of course his teacher career had nothing to do with trading. Robert knew being a high school teacher had much better chance to make a living than writing more bible or using his knowledge in this bible to win(not lose) any money in market, his bid should be correct! How about John? http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-theory/10/pioneers-technical-analysis.asp "Unfortunately for Magee, early on he was better at looking after his clients than his own portfolio, often selling out in his own portfolio based on gut feelings despite strong hold signals from his charts." So he could not believe what he wrote when he invested. Base on what I read from articles, John kept writing more stuff about TA. Very likely he made a living by writing "interesting" TA stuff but nothing really from investment (especially from TA). "Magee graduated from MIT in 1923 and worked in a variety of sales and marketing jobs, including a position as a Fuller Brush salesman, until he met Robert D. Edwards in 1942." MIT sounds cool right? But what did John really do before he started to write Bible with Robert and then kept writing about TA? John was a salesman but nothing else! John had been a salesman for around 20 year before having an idea to write TA stuff included bible with Robert. John came up with a perfect marketing solution to help him makes money after having 20 years of marking experience! So I went through one of the original version of this "bible". It is very thick around 500 pages, most are wording, really a lot of wording and no scientific proof at all, just some random graphs showing "it works in this graph, then it should work anytime anywhere". Even in any graph that they tried to prove it works, there are so many ways to look at the same graph and write any kind of trendlines, curve line or whatever on there. No figure or data to prove any "idea" in the "bible" has any prediction power. I really cannot just believe a "bible" by a high school teacher and a "financial entertainment writer" would help me anything related to trading especially no scientific proof in the bible at all but just crazy many wordings with few graphs. Honestly it is much worse than watching CNBC. At least I can get some facts from CNBC news. A lot or most of the TA are originally come from this "bible". Can we believe TA at all? Is TA more useful than purely guessing? Careers of these two authors tell you the answer!
Point taken but Richard W. Schabacker was writing about TA before Edwards and Magee. Interestingly some of the most successful guys in trading that I have read about talk of using TA in some way. Not necessarily as a tool for prediction but as a tool to define an entry, stop , and target. Peter Brandt and Pitbull come to mind off the top of my head. "I used fundamentals for nine years and got rich as a technician" Pitbull Just reading in a different thread about how Livermore blew his brains out and died with little money left, yet places like Goldman Sachs have his books on their required reading list if you want to be a trader there. There are lessons to be learned from others even if they themselves may not have had the success they wished. On another note. Many regard the Market Wizards series as some of the best trading books of our time but I don't think Jack Schwager makes his living from trading. The books still have much value IMO. Interesting research on Edwards and Magee , Thanks
TA is a fraud-- its ok for descriptive purposes for journalists and marketers. But as a trading tool, its just stupid. surf
This member is a self professed journalist This member is a self professed failed trader This member professed to blowing up his ex's funds This member has made trade calls - then proceeded to break every reasonable risk management known - as that / those trades broke down This member sells services related to trading These are facts..., not my opinion I suggest taking his feedback about anything trading related - accordingly I'd also suggest - since he so anti-trading - go find another forum suited to your..., whatever it is you profess competence at RN
TA is based on price - price never lies TA is quite useful - for measuring / gauging / contextualizing GB, You're thinking differently..., you're questioning Both are very important to cracking the trading nut RN
These are falsehoods wrapped in some truth. I am not a "failed trader". Where did you get that idea? Why do you equate being anti TA as being anti trading? Frankly, that's just bizzare. You are defending TA like its some kind of religion. That has me worried since most of what i read of yours is good stuff. What do i sell related to trading? surf
It's real simple. Did the level hold or not - and how did traders react around it? Go long or short based on the timeframe you're interested in. If eggs are 50c/dozen you can bet there will be buying interest. Not so much at 10$/dozen. If you observe an established floor or ceiling it means you're analyzing technicals. If you observe a moving floor or ceiling based on interest over time or volume it means you're analyzing technicals (that create a trend). To assert that price levels aren't respected means you're simply blind. Now if one wants to argue you MACD, RSI, stoch, MA crosses etc then go ahead - but atleast define the TA you're talking about first.
What about this guy who wrote the real bible on price action? I dare you to say he died broke. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wyckoff