Crucial, let me preface this by saying we all have our own reasons for posting. My reason is so that people like you can come around and tell me why I'm an idiot. And if you can prove it then I actually got something worthwhile from all this. So don't take me the wrong way
I absolutely agree that just because someone did research does not automatically make something a strong argument. (though i will say ANY study at least makes an attempt to prove something beyond what we can only assume is conjecture (which is not to say that I don't think you're profitable)) But yes, results can be interpreted differently and manipulated. You have to draw your own conclusions based on how any study was performed, what data was used, etc. I intentionally left a map of where the study could be found so that people could form their own opinion on it. I'm not trying to say that trading pure TA on a short time frame is impossible, and your success may be a tribute to that, but I am saying that numbers speak louder than words.
I apologize if i came off as saying that i was indisputably correct in my assertions.
I'm not aware of any worthwhile studies in particular that say "lower TF have higher statistical advantage over bigger TF" but I would love to read some and figure out WHY they came up with that result and learn from it. Please feel free to link to some.
There are thousands of people on these boards with tons of different opinions. I'd rather form MY opinions based on empirical data, taken for what it's worth, rather than the small subset of market data and forum posters that i (or most) have access to. It's easy for some one to say I'm an idiot but it's hard (for me) to take it seriously when its backed up with "in MY personal opinion".
You realize that this has nothing to do with what we're talking about. (I'm sure you also realize that price can tick when liquidity is pulled). Also, the definition of WHAT exactly? You could analyze the corn in my crap but that doesn't mean it will tell you when I'm shitting next (or maybe it does??).
You've continued to miss the point. If you're gonna take a stab at me at least pay attention and try to make it relevant.
I absolutely agree that just because someone did research does not automatically make something a strong argument. (though i will say ANY study at least makes an attempt to prove something beyond what we can only assume is conjecture (which is not to say that I don't think you're profitable)) But yes, results can be interpreted differently and manipulated. You have to draw your own conclusions based on how any study was performed, what data was used, etc. I intentionally left a map of where the study could be found so that people could form their own opinion on it. I'm not trying to say that trading pure TA on a short time frame is impossible, and your success may be a tribute to that, but I am saying that numbers speak louder than words.
I apologize if i came off as saying that i was indisputably correct in my assertions.
I'm not aware of any worthwhile studies in particular that say "lower TF have higher statistical advantage over bigger TF" but I would love to read some and figure out WHY they came up with that result and learn from it. Please feel free to link to some.
There are thousands of people on these boards with tons of different opinions. I'd rather form MY opinions based on empirical data, taken for what it's worth, rather than the small subset of market data and forum posters that i (or most) have access to. It's easy for some one to say I'm an idiot but it's hard (for me) to take it seriously when its backed up with "in MY personal opinion".
Quoting slackDislikedThis is 100% BS. You realize that every single tick/order in the market is a result of someone, somewhere voluntarily pressing the Buy or Sell button? By definition, this means every pip movement has a meaning/intent and can be analyzed either individually or in aggregate.Ignored
QuoteDislikedI cannot figure out how to trade off a tick chart, but I'm not going to say it's full of "noise" due to my lack of skill.