Technical analysis is total bunk.

[stillfire]

so good on you. you made a correct prediction, yourself! after the triangle you called trend continuation. keep up the good analysis, whatever techniques you're using

So the score is 2 correct for arepo and 1 for tripper22?

[1714936655]

1714936655

[1714936655]

1714936655

[nrd525]

Are there any studies that prove that technical analysis works?

There are a small number of traders that make money trading.  However, the smaller this number gets - the more likely it is due to luck.  If you have 1/32 or more of traders making money in a zero-sum (or negative sum after the fees) market for five years in a row - then that would be evidence that analysis can work.

Whether or not I believe in technical analysis, there are other people who do and it will affect their actions and thus affect the market.  Now where it gets tricky is that you don't know what indicators people are following, so I stick to fundamentals (aka value).

[Piper67]

Are there any studies that prove that technical analysis works?

There are a small number of traders that make money trading.  However, the smaller this number gets - the more likely it is due to luck.  If you have 1/32 or more of traders making money in a zero-sum (or negative sum after the fees) market for five years in a row - then that would be evidence that analysis can work.

Whether or not I believe in technical analysis, there are other people who do and it will affect their actions and thus affect the market.  Now where it gets tricky is that you don't know what indicators people are following, so I stick to fundamentals (aka value).

Even in that case, it's well within the realm of possibility. Try getting a hold of Leonard Mlodinow's book " The Drunkard's Walk, How Randomness Affects Our Lives". There's an entire chapter devoted to day traders/TA people... and it's bunk 

[notme]

Are there any studies that prove that technical analysis works?

There are a small number of traders that make money trading.  However, the smaller this number gets - the more likely it is due to luck.  If you have 1/32 or more of traders making money in a zero-sum (or negative sum after the fees) market for five years in a row - then that would be evidence that analysis can work.

Whether or not I believe in technical analysis, there are other people who do and it will affect their actions and thus affect the market.  Now where it gets tricky is that you don't know what indicators people are following, so I stick to fundamentals (aka value).

Even in that case, it's well within the realm of possibility. Try getting a hold of Leonard Mlodinow's book " The Drunkard's Walk, How Randomness Affects Our Lives". There's an entire chapter devoted to day traders/TA people... and it's bunk 

There is money to be made in market making, but large risk as well.  TA can help identify when to step out of the way.  Additionally, it is much easier to do market making in code than manually.  But the TA can tell me when to turn my not off.

[arepo]

Are there any studies that prove that technical analysis works?

There are a small number of traders that make money trading.  However, the smaller this number gets - the more likely it is due to luck.  If you have 1/32 or more of traders making money in a zero-sum (or negative sum after the fees) market for five years in a row - then that would be evidence that analysis can work.

Whether or not I believe in technical analysis, there are other people who do and it will affect their actions and thus affect the market.  Now where it gets tricky is that you don't know what indicators people are following, so I stick to fundamentals (aka value).

Even in that case, it's well within the realm of possibility. Try getting a hold of Leonard Mlodinow's book " The Drunkard's Walk, How Randomness Affects Our Lives". There's an entire chapter devoted to day traders/TA people... and it's bunk 

there are many cases against it. but the trick is that one has to prove the absence of time-correlations in price data. proving a negative is notoriously difficult.