arepo's easy TA

[damnek]

More "technical analysis" from a guy who hasn't made a single right call.. no thanks.

Why I don't agree with everything arepo says, he did say that we will fall far from $7 back in January 2012. And if you remember correctly, price went down to sub $4 then, before regaining strength a lot later.

Ah, so he was right in 2012 once. A broken clock..

[1714103862]

1714103862

[1714103862]

1714103862

[1714103862]

1714103862

[arepo]

why all the hate guys? if you don't like my analysis, don't waste your time and energy snarking about it. every time you post you bump my thread and it gets more views

this thread was for people new to TA who might want to learn a little about it. i know many of you think TA is bunk, but making that assertion over and over again in all of my threads gets real old real fast considering that there are a number of people who would actually appreciate this work.

i tried to have an open conversation about it about a month ago in "in defense of technical analysis" and i got more accusations of being a charlatan. why do you think i left? because i was ashamed of my incorrect predictions? i can handle being wrong, it happens to every trader. can you handle me being wrong?

most of the predictions i do make, i do not post. like this one. i recognized this pattern, and the 'prediction' of the resumption of the trend played out like it often does. after-the-fact, i wanted to share this textbook inverse pennant. SwannyMatt says basically the same exact thing in this thread, but he has no group of dedicated "PROTECTORS OF THE PEOPLE" to remind everyone to ignore him...

you're seriously damaging my reputation over a personal vendetta surrounding the fact that the last time i did serious work i believed that the market was heading in the opposite direction as you. that doesn't make us enemies, that's silly.

More "technical analysis" from a guy who hasn't made a single right call.. no thanks.

Why I don't agree with everything arepo says, he did say that we will fall far from $7 back in January 2012. And if you remember correctly, price went down to sub $4 then, before regaining strength a lot later.

thanks for the backup haha

yeah i've been doing this awhile but my model was way off earlier this year. i've been a bull for most of the time i've known about bitcoin and the one time i convince myself that the price isn't stable, we shoot up to record-setting highs oh well. at least there was no skin off of my own back.

[arepo]

Update:

today, with little surprise, we're seeing a continuation of the downtrend. unfortunately, btccharts seems to be suffering from 'friendly' ddos, or simply an overload of queries. without consultation of the indicators, i can't yet prognosticate about the bottom.

as of this post however, we're at $78 up from a bottom around $50. this correction to the downtrend might be a sign of exhaustion already, or may simply be a consolidation period. i strongly suspect there to be significant support at the last high of $31.50, and 'impenetrable support' at the last stable price in the low teens.

-arepo

if you profit from me, help keep it free!
18N9md2G1oA89kdBuiyJFrtJShuL5iDWDz

[Ichthyo]

Arepo, basically this is not personal, but you are posting in a public forum and your behaviour is inacceptable.

You post musings and unproven and insubstantial claims.
But you make them look as if they where gained in a methodical way by an exact engineering method.

We pointed out the errors in your reasoning and methods numerous times and in all cases you just walk away, and open a new thread to "teach the masses". There you repeat exactly the same ill-guided conclusions and continue to promote your method of so called "technical" "analysis". This more and more arises the suspicion that you want to spread a believe system. Which is unacceptable in this context.

why all the hate guys?

It is irrelevant who is posting this. The hate is not personal.
But you get to feel it since you and your fellow TA believers are abusing math and engineering to promote mythological thinking.

i tried to have an open conversation about it about a month ago in "in defense of technical analysis" and i got more accusations of being a charlatan.

more precisely, we pointed out that we expect a methodical proof from you.

The null hypothesis is that the so called "technical analysis" does not make any substantial predictions and does not show any substantial phenomena and does not yield any practical results which could not be achieved with simpler means. Now your duty would be to disproof this hypothesis, thereby showing that TA is indeed a substantial method.

But instead you just walk away and open a new thread, and repeat the same pattern of reasoning as if we didn't point out the errors in your reasoning.

And it is especially infuriating that you try to lure the newbies into using your ill-guided "method" and inconclusive reasoning.

most of the predictions i do make, i do not post. like this one. i recognized this pattern, and the 'prediction' of the resumption of the trend played out like it often does. after-the-fact, i wanted to share this textbook inverse pennant.

This is exactly how this self-deception seems to work

• you "recognize" a pattern
• you fail to apply your ability of critical thinking
• you don't account for your presuppositions
• you don't account for your choice of methods.
• if it doesn't work out, you forget it
• if it looks like a real phenomenon after-the-fact, then you advocate it as an "textbook example"

To make this point crystal clear:
It is not the fact that you do predictions.
It is not the fact that some of your predictions turn out wrong.
It would not be a problem if you'd share the "musings of an experienced trader".

It is the fact that you pretend to teach a serious, rational, methodical discipline. Which it isn't.

[afbitcoins]

Great thread 

[arepo]

Great thread 

haha thanks. this is an old thread, and i forgot to thank Ichthyo for his last post, because i did take a step back and reassess the rigor of many of my methods. asking questions like "is this falsifiable?" and "is the error on this trendline measurable?" has helped me become more accurate and more precise.

anyway, i posted the chart in question in your thread so that you wouldn't have to hunt.

--arepo

[ruski]

Ichthyo, technical analysis is a well recognized and in the right hands predictive tool to accompany rational market research.

It does not provide answers on its own. Two patterns may be identical, but if one has a crowd screaming "BUY" at it and the other "SELL" they will have different outcomes.

Your entire argument seems to be that TA is tantamount to reading tea leaves. I urge you to do some research, maybe borrow a book from the library and reconsider.

[Shinobi]

Technical Analysis is the finance equivalent of astrology. Fancy lingo, "reverse prismatic oscillations". Shut the hell up.

[ruski]

Technical Analysis is the finance equivalent of astrology. Fancy lingo, "reverse prismatic oscillations". Shut the hell up.

>you

[Shinobi]

Really, then why was Aerop's defense to every attack that none of this was predictive? If it has no predictive value, then stop dreaming up a way of dressing the past in technical jargon to make it sound like some sort of higher organizing (by implication, universal) principle is at work.

And its quite ironic that you attack on me consists of a picture where a child has difficulty reading. Try using english and not a JPEG next time - it only reveals your own inability to articulate a response.

Technical Analysis is the finance equivalent of astrology. Fancy lingo, "reverse prismatic oscillations". Shut the hell up.

>you

[ruski]

Really, then why was Aerop's defense to every attack that none of this was predictive? If it has no predictive value, then stop dreaming up a way of dressing the past in technical jargon to make it sound like some sort of higher organizing (by implication, universal) principle is at work.

Don't ask me. If used right it is predictive.

There are well researched and explained reasons behind some of the patterns you see. How can you say it's worthless if you know nothing about it?

[Shinobi]

There are well researched and explained reasons behind some of the patterns you see.

Maybe so. But not for predictive value. If TA was of significant use, there wouldn't be a market.

[ruski]

There are well researched and explained reasons behind some of the patterns you see.

Maybe so. But not for predictive value. If TA was of significant use, there wouldn't be a market.

A long time ago, in a market far away, there was a little stock named LCC, or US Airways. Now I'd been watching this stock with some interest. It had just had a significant drop, I believe, and there was news (like there is every six months with these guys....) about a potential merger. Volume was up, and the last close had been iffy.

The market opened low. Volume was all but absent. The price was at about $1.10 I believe. Trading was sideways along a knife edge. I watched, I didn't take my eyes off that screen.. and about an hour in, I saw a tiny dip. BUY.

Within minutes it went vertical, up to $1.90. I held on at the $1.70 plateau and correctly timed the peak at $190, a third plateau, selling before it fell back to $1.50.

How did I do that? Not only did I hear the news and knew the market was on edge, I knew it was either going to collapse further due to the bad news causing the prior drop or break upward on a panic buy.

How did I know that? By seeing the volume so uncharacteristically low, and the sideways pattern, finally confirmed for an upward movement by the dip, which I knew was about to cause a buying frenzy snowball. If it had moved upward out of the range, I would've gone off to look at something else while it collapsed.

TA has its place.

[dg2010]

TA has its place.

Cool story bro. You got lucky. Well done.

[Ichthyo]

Trading was sideways along a knife edge. I watched, I didn't take my eyes off that screen.. and about an hour in, I saw a tiny dip. BUY.

Within minutes it went vertical...

How did I do that? Not only did I hear the news and knew the market was on edge, I knew it was either going to collapse further due to the bad news causing the prior drop or break upward on a panic buy.

How did I know that? By seeing the volume so uncharacteristically low, and the sideways pattern, finally confirmed for an upward movement by the dip, which I knew was about to cause a buying frenzy snowball.

And this chain of events make you believe that it was TA which "told" you so?

More specifically, which technique did you apply to uncover a hidden pattern, which an TA unaware guy would never be able to see? So you got a head start?


This is exactly how it works. People put a lot of effort into learning TA stuff. And this effort makes them think that they must have gained some additional skills. From that point on, they attribute every success to their TA kung fu, and of course every loss is attributed to an external obstacle, and eliminated from memory quickly.

[ruski]

More specifically, which technique did you apply to uncover a hidden pattern, which an TA unaware guy would never be able to see? So you got a head start?

This is exactly how it works. People put a lot of effort into learning TA stuff. And this effort makes them think that they must have gained some additional skills. From that point on, they attribute every success to their TA kung fu, and of course every loss is attributed to an external obstacle, and eliminated from memory quickly.

Specifically? I could "see" that if things were normal, that stock should've been lazily moving in one direction or another. Instead, it looked like tension-charged uncertainty - specifically, trading within a very narrow range, meaning speculators aren't taking a stand either way - and knowing the two pieces of news good and bad. The comparison of that line, which by itself could suggest a strong breakout, to market sentiment, supported by both strong good and strong bad news, and also knowing that it was a pretty hot stock for traders and was being closely watched and discussed, all confirmed the fact that it was going to break strongly in one direction or another, and keep going.

Seeing the dip confirmed a buy, because with so many automatic traders and hair-trigger fingers watching, a dip would be an opportunity to buy that would be eaten up by everybody watching the tight range, pushing it up out of that range and causing a panic buy. (Which is exactly what happened.)

It's not voodoo and it's not magic. A stock chart will become an open book once you can interpret a chart in the right context. I second guess myself sometimes because the patterns look too blandly obvious, like somebody is trying to make it look that way. Then I remind myself not to be paranoid.

[Ichthyo]

Specifically? I could "see" that if things were normal, that stock should've been lazily moving in one direction or another. Instead, it looked like tension-charged uncertainty....

Rusky, I don't question your skills as a trader. Certainly not.

Just your example shows yet again that it's gut feeling and intuitive understanding of a current market situation, which can give you sometimes a head start. You can eliminate any TA related methods completely and still get the same results.

[ruski]

How would I do that if I couldn't recognize:

a) the sawblade range trading pattern, and the implications, and
b) the way other market participants react to various changes on the line?

I could've just as easily figured it was going to be a slow day because the price wasn't moving. Or I could've panicked when it dipped, thinking that was it and it was headed south.

It becomes intuition after a while, sure. But there is still real practical theory behind it, and you'd do well to learn some of it.

[Ichthyo]

How would I do that if I couldn't recognize:

Confirms exactly my argument. You learned that stuff and now you think it helped you.
But what you actually describe as your actions is just traders common sense. I can't see any method which uncovers hidden structures, or cretaes verifieable predictions.

Please proof that there is no other way finding out.
Please provide a complete account of all incidents, where your method gave you the right indications, and all the incidents were your method led you astray.

Unless you can do so, the conclusion is: your "method" doesn't exist.

[arepo]

Technical Analysis is the finance equivalent of astrology. Fancy lingo, "reverse prismatic oscillations". Shut the hell up.

try "dampened oscillator" -- that's the model for a triangle consolidation pattern, and those words aren't 'lingo', they're math.

Really, then why was Aerop's defense to every attack that none of this was predictive?

because this thread was not intended to be predictive. plain and simple. this was an outline of a pattern that had already formed in completion -- how difficult is it to understand this? don't necromance my goddamn threads if you're not even going to read them critically, and find my many others if you want to see predictive TA.

There are well researched and explained reasons behind some of the patterns you see.

Maybe so. But not for predictive value. If TA was of significant use, there wouldn't be a market.

if you're feeling up to it, check out this post where TraderTimm explains the mathematical evidence for why methods of TA work.

How would I do that if I couldn't recognize:

Confirms exactly my argument. You learned that stuff and now you think it helped you.
But what you actually describe as your actions is just traders common sense. I can't see any method which uncovers hidden structures, or cretaes verifieable predictions.

Please proof that there is no other way finding out.
Please provide a complete account of all incidents, where your method gave you the right indications, and all the incidents were your method led you astray.

Unless you can do so, the conclusion is: your "method" doesn't exist.

this is garbage -- really. if there are no 'VERIFIABLE METHODS WHICH YIELD POSITIVE RESULTS AT A RATE BETTER THAN CHANCE" than how can anyone be a 'skilled' trader? what does that even mean? what has ruski learned? if the anti-TA crowd is right, and the price is a random walk, then no method whatsoever can, over long periods of time, yield returns greater than chance.

so go home and buy a lottery ticket. and for the last time, if you have something to say like "TA is bunk" or "this thread is garbage", keep in mind that you're doing exactly what you claim i am -- making groundless assertions. also for the last time, if you want to have a serious discussion about this, start your own damn threads, don't spam mine with single-line, naysaying tactics. C'mon guys...

--arepo