Say NO to voodoo analysis!

[colour]

"Technical" analysis is so prevalent in all the bitcoin related communities that newbies may get the impression that the majority here is actually trading according to it. That is not the case!

Voodoo indicators (e.g. 3d Ronald McDonald Indicator, Random Squiggly Line Indicator, etc.) will not predict price movements! They do not guarantee successful trades! Don't fall for the deceptive words of the snake oil analysis high priests!

It's mostly just a bunch of esoteric shenanigans trying to make itself appear slightly less ridiculous by masquerading behind the term "technical". That one guy on r/bitcoinmarkets is at least honest and flat out admits that he trades according to astrological constellations. May I suggest some tea leaf reading instead? Or how about analysing the flight of the swallows? 100% trading success guaranteed, follow me on twitter and subscribe to my blog for only $29.99/month. I'll throw in a fancy feather crown for free!

None of those silly indicators predicted the series of massive drops we have seen in the past months. Instead, the false prophets on reddit would announce each and every time how all their indicators are pointing towards a great buying opportunity right before each single massive dump. People probably lost a boatload of money if they actually listened to that nonsense...

[1714832177]

1714832177

[1714832177]

1714832177

[1714832177]

1714832177

[1714832177]

1714832177

[RyNinDaCleM]

"Technical" analysis is so prevalent in all the bitcoin related communities that newbies may get the impression that the majority here is actually trading according to it. That is not the case!

Voodoo indicators (e.g. 3d Ronald McDonald Indicator, Random Squiggly Line Indicator, etc.) will not predict price movements! They do not guarantee successful trades! Don't fall for the deceptive words of the snake oil analysis high priests!

It's mostly just a bunch of esoteric shenanigans trying to make itself appear slightly less ridiculous by masquerading behind the term "technical". That one guy on r/bitcoinmarkets is at least honest and flat out admits that he trades according to astrological constellations. May I suggest some tea leaf reading instead? Or how about analysing the flight of the swallows? 100% trading success guaranteed, follow me on twitter and subscribe to my blog for only $29.99/month. I'll throw in a fancy feather crown for free!

None of those silly indicators predicted the series of massive drops we have seen in the past months. Instead, the false prophets on reddit would announce each and every time how all their indicators are pointing towards a great buying opportunity right before each single massive dump. People probably lost a boatload of money if they actually listened to that nonsense...

First things first... NO ONE GUARANTEES THEIR ANALYSIS TO BE 100%.
Secondly, My charts have only had about 4 real longer hold signals since January. These aren't transfer to cold storage holds either, but longer than a few days. I trade a lot, but the longer term signals haven't been on the bulls side at all in 2014. The people saying all their indicators are pointing up over the last months, are just spewing baseless crap.

[abs350]

agreed, this "analysis" is 100% bullshit.

there is only 1 analysis that is necessary: there is too much analysis

there are still too many people interested in bitcoin, too much hope and too much false optimism around. that's all you need to know. forget the astrology, "indicators", moving average hype bullshit.

bitcoin has had its day, and its day was in november 2013. that day has now passed and it's a long way down.

dont waste your time with any of this "TA". the only relevant fact is that bitcoin is over-traded and under-utilized. that means its a prime short.

call me falling ok, but that's my position

[brg444]

agreed, this "analysis" is 100% bullshit.

there is only 1 analysis that is necessary: there is too much analysis

there are still too many people interested in bitcoin, too much hope and too much false optimism around. that's all you need to know. forget the astrology, "indicators", moving average hype bullshit.

bitcoin has had its day, and its day was in november 2013. that day has now passed and it's a long way down.

dont waste your time with any of this "TA". the only relevant fact is that bitcoin is over-traded and under-utilized. that means its a prime short.

call me falling ok, but that's my position

 

you're in for some surprises if you expect bitcoin to fade away like that

[colour]

First things first... NO ONE GUARANTEES THEIR ANALYSIS TO BE 100%.

Ok, here are just 2 quick quotes as examples:

Still, people are safely making billions on those lines

the 3d MACD hasn't produced one false signal so far in the history of Bitcoin.

Proclaiming that you can safely make billions (lol!) and that Ronald McDonald is never wrong is IMHO pretty close to promising a 100% success rate for making profit. And that's just 2 random quotes from this board, I'm more familiar with r/bitcoinmarkets where they use magical indicators and arbitrarily drawn lines to make false predictions about imminent price outbreaks basically every day. Doesn't seem to bother them though, they just continue the very next day as if nothing happened...

Secondly, My charts have only had about 4 real longer hold signals since January. These aren't transfer to cold storage holds either, but longer than a few days. I trade a lot, but the longer term signals haven't been on the bulls side at all in 2014. The people saying all their indicators are pointing up over the last months, are just spewing baseless crap.

To me this reads like a variation of the No True Scotsman Fallacy:
"Scotsman Indicators give you false trade signals? Well, then of course he's not a TRUE Scotsman you must be using it wrong!"

In any case, even if you are right, most of the economic wizards I see on these boards are quite obviously unable to use their TA tools correctly as the vast majority of their never-ending predictions turn out to be constantly wrong.

[oda.krell]

...

To me this reads like a variation of the No True Scotsman Fallacy:
"Scotsman Indicators give you false trade signals? Well, then of course he's not a TRUE Scotsman you must be using it wrong!"

There are people (on the Internet, writing about it, in fact) claiming to do physics and having invented perpetuum mobile devices.

An actual physicist pointing out that's just bunk science, and that their claims can safely be ignored is also just committing a 'No True Scotsman Fallacy', by your interpretation.

The low signal/noise ratio on a forum like this, and the large number of thoughtless practitioners of the more cargo cult-ian aspects of TA in here, are not sufficient reason to conclude that TA in principle doesn't work.

[RyNinDaCleM]

Conversation between OP and I...

This is the Weekly McDonald's
Nowhere in 2014 has there been a buy signal
The closest we got was the cross up, back in June. But the low angle of the cross was a weak signal with low probabilities. Some "absolute" traders may have called that a strong buy because it "Absolutely" crossed up. Some that can discern the difference between a good signal and a bad signal made money (or at least protected their wealth) and didn't buy there.


The quality of the analysis comes down to how well they can read the market. Experience plays a gigantic role in this. Some have it and some don't.

Look, I'm not trying to convince you to convert to our side (I already did enough of that with others around here ) but I just want to show you that there were no real "TODAMOON" signals at all this year and most signals that were present said down.

[brg444]

First things first... NO ONE GUARANTEES THEIR ANALYSIS TO BE 100%.

Ok, here are just 2 quick quotes as examples:

Still, people are safely making billions on those lines

the 3d MACD hasn't produced one false signal so far in the history of Bitcoin.

Ronald McDonald is never wrong is IMHO pretty close to promising a 100% success rate for making profit. And that's just 2 random quotes from this board, I'm more familiar with r/bitcoinmarkets where they use magical indicators and arbitrarily drawn lines to make false predictions about imminent price outbreaks basically every day. Doesn't seem to bother them though, they just continue the very next day as if nothing happened...

My quote pertains to the historic performance of the indicator.

FIrst, this is taken out of context and 2nd saying that it has not been wrong so far is not the same as suggesting it will never be.

[colour]

There are people (on the Internet, writing about it, in fact) claiming to do physics and having invented perpetuum mobile devices.

An actual physicist pointing out that's just bunk science, and that their claims can safely be ignored is also just committing a 'No True Scotsman Fallacy', by your interpretation.

The low signal/noise ratio on a forum like this, and the large number of thoughtless practitioners of the more cargo cult-ian aspects of TA in here, are not sufficient reason to conclude that TA in principle doesn't work.

You know, I'd just like to actually see one of those guys who safely made billions with TA. Otherwise I will simply dismiss them into the same category as perpetuum mobiles (that's actually a nice comparison you came up with there, oda ).

But I guess they are probably all too busy living the elusive, seclusive rich people life after they safely conjured up all those billions.

[oda.krell]

There are people (on the Internet, writing about it, in fact) claiming to do physics and having invented perpetuum mobile devices.

An actual physicist pointing out that's just bunk science, and that their claims can safely be ignored is also just committing a 'No True Scotsman Fallacy', by your interpretation.

The low signal/noise ratio on a forum like this, and the large number of thoughtless practitioners of the more cargo cult-ian aspects of TA in here, are not sufficient reason to conclude that TA in principle doesn't work.

You know, I'd just like to actually see one of those guys who safely made billions with TA. Otherwise I will simply dismiss them into the same category as perpetuum mobiles (that's actually a nice comparison you came up with there, oda ).

But I guess they are probably all too busy living the elusive, seclusive rich people life after they safely conjured up all those billions.

Don't think anyone made a billion in this market yet. Not enough liquidity, no sufficiently established exchange yet.

A million or two on the other hand... I'm pretty sure some managed to do that by trading. How would you want them to prove it was due to a strategy though? Just posting a list of trades, even if profitable, could be still just a result of chance.

[intighet]

Voodoo indicators (e.g. 3d Ronald McDonald Indicator, Random Squiggly Line Indicator, etc.) will not predict price movements!

Have you any positive evidence for your positive claims? No? Then you are no better than the so-called charlatans.

[colour]

Voodoo indicators (e.g. 3d Ronald McDonald Indicator, Random Squiggly Line Indicator, etc.) will not predict price movements!

Have you any positive evidence for your positive claims? No? Then you are no better than the so-called charlatans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Those safely made billions are out there somewhere, trust me! You can't see them yet, but that's just because you lack faith. Trust in your technical redeemer and you too can be rich.

[chessnut]

Its a fallacy for two reasons to say that 'TA' is bogus because not everybody wins using it. Reason one, most people HAVE to lose, it's a zero sum game! Reason two, a lot of technical analysts are trolls and cant explain a single thing about what they are doing.

There are some very robust laws playing out in the market that have to be respected. Ask any economist who 'understands the fundamentals' ( ). He might tell you that forces of the market act to restore equilibrium. they do! a physics scientist will also tell you that this is exactly the model of a simple sine wave. In other words what goes up must come down. If the technical analyst uses leading indicators that effectively can measure momentum, acceleration and deceleration in price action, he has officially a legitimate mathematic and scientific edge in probability of choosing low and high prices to buy and sell.

[knight22]

Why should my analysis wouldn't be as legitimate as anybody else  

[RyNinDaCleM]

Why should my analysis wouldn't be as legitimate as anybody else  

Well, if it didn't go backwards in time might be a good start

[Stinky_Pete]

You can't beat chicken entrails, IMHO

[chessnut]

Why should my analysis wouldn't be as legitimate as anybody else  

This guy gets it ^^

[bassclef]

Oh look, another TA bashing thread.

If you're all going to act like closed-minded children about it I'll simply keep my TA-derived trading strategies (and profits) to myself.

[abs350]

Its a fallacy for two reasons to say that 'TA' is bogus because not everybody wins using it. Reason one, most people HAVE to lose, it's a zero sum game! Reason two, a lot of technical analysts are trolls and cant explain a single thing about what they are doing.

There are some very robust laws playing out in the market that have to be respected. Ask any economist who 'understands the fundamentals' ( ). He might tell you that forces of the market act to restore equilibrium. they do! a physics scientist will also tell you that this is exactly the model of a simple sine wave. In other words what goes up must come down. If the technical analyst uses leading indicators that effectively can measure momentum, acceleration and deceleration in price action, he has officially a legitimate mathematic and scientific edge in probability of choosing low and high prices to buy and sell.

gosh, really? what the hell does "equilibrium" have to do with it?

you think there are really hard and fast rules to any market?

seriously dude, forget this sine wave thing. it's rubbish seriously.

the closest thing to a market is a game of chess or poker. that's it. everything else, any rules or moving averages, indicators, or statistics, are incorrect.

how could you figure out the best move in chess by using statistics? clearly it would not work. the same goes for this sine wave thing. there are no logical rules to chess, just as there are no logicl rules to how a market works.

the way you win chess is to get inside the mind of the other player. that's why computers who are good at chess search through all the different possible moves and pick the best one. they dont perform any statistical analysis of previous gameplay, on the assumption that future gameplay will be like the past. the same is true of markets. to figure out how the market is going to move, you have to get inside the mind of the average trader.

any other strategy or technique is pure bullshit. we all know that indicators may occasionally work, but because they have no scientific merit they are not hard and fast and will fail.

there are multiple philisophical points that are brough up by this discussion, interestingly. but ultimately how your model works is more important than the output. if you base your model on incorrect assumptions, you are never going to get a satisfactory output. and that is where 99% of market predictions or indicators go wrong.

the only way to make money from indicators - or more broadly any form of technical analysis - is to sell them to other traders on false claims. john bollinger has done a pretty good job of that.

[chessnut]

Its a fallacy for two reasons to say that 'TA' is bogus because not everybody wins using it. Reason one, most people HAVE to lose, it's a zero sum game! Reason two, a lot of technical analysts are trolls and cant explain a single thing about what they are doing.

There are some very robust laws playing out in the market that have to be respected. Ask any economist who 'understands the fundamentals' ( ). He might tell you that forces of the market act to restore equilibrium. they do! a physics scientist will also tell you that this is exactly the model of a simple sine wave. In other words what goes up must come down. If the technical analyst uses leading indicators that effectively can measure momentum, acceleration and deceleration in price action, he has officially a legitimate mathematic and scientific edge in probability of choosing low and high prices to buy and sell.

gosh, really? what the hell does "equilibrium" have to do with it?

you think there are really hard and fast rules to any market?

seriously dude, forget this sine wave thing. it's rubbish seriously.

the closest thing to a market is a game of chess or poker. that's it. everything else, any rules or moving averages, indicators, or statistics, are incorrect.

how could you figure out the best move in chess by using statistics? clearly it would not work. the same goes for this sine wave thing. there are no logical rules to chess, just as there are no logicl rules to how a market works.

the way you win chess is to get inside the mind of the other player. that's why computers who are good at chess search through all the different possible moves and pick the best one. they dont perform any statistical analysis of previous gameplay, on the assumption that future gameplay will be like the past. the same is true of markets. to figure out how the market is going to move, you have to get inside the mind of the average trader.

any other strategy or technique is pure bullshit. we all know that indicators may occasionally work, but because they have no scientific merit they are not hard and fast and will fail.

there are multiple philisophical points that are brough up by this discussion, interestingly. but ultimately how your model works is more important than the output. if you base your model on incorrect assumptions, you are never going to get a satisfactory output. and that is where 99% of market predictions or indicators go wrong.

the only way to make money from indicators - or more broadly any form of technical analysis - is to sell them to other traders on false claims. john bollinger has done a pretty good job of that.

Im looking hard, really hard, but I cant find any facts here. lot of fallacies though.