I'm not obligated to share anything on the Internet with anyone.
No, you're not. Nobody is. It's your choice to do so.
No...I'm not a subscriber because I have a different way of working with the markets. However, their disciplined analysis compliments mine.
Challenges are meant only to provoke and not promote the art of technical analysis. One might take another approach and ask HOW something is or isn't working for them, or what they may see what you may be missing or might be helpful. We all get myopic from time to time. A different aspect should therefore be always welcomed. Then again, and in this specific case, all of this may have already been shared by both Don and Tom in other posts, so challenging them makes it seem like you don't even read what they have to offer to your diametric response.
So, how about this for an exercise? You have made the comment that "technical indicators <are> rendered useless, as they're mostly oscillators". Why don't you then provide an example of which oscillator isn't working, why it isn't working, and leave that for discussion or input from others instead of making what many would consider a "drive by" statement with little or no substantive proof behind it?
Fib
Thanks very much for your comments Fib - appreciated. And I absolutely agree. If we are to discuss whether or not an indicator (a specific oscillator for example) is or is not "USELESS",
why not start a discussion string about that indicator and explain why you render it useless by explaining how you use it and how it doesn't "work" when you use it that way. Then ask others to explain whether they have a way of using it that does "work"- and detail that method. In the end we ALL might learn something - about how certain indicators can be used in ways different than we'd been using them for example- ways that may be very effective.
I think this whole process would be far more useful for traders here than just making a flat out indictment - "oscillators are useless".... Or of having every poster here predict each night whether the market goes "up tomorrow or down tomorrow", then seeing each day who got that day wrong or right..... which some of us consider to be somewhat akin to a silly fraternity game. To me trading is all about trends- not about tomorrows pattern.
Just as an example to this thinking process, for example,
have you considered tracking not the absolute level but instead the TREND of oscillators as a method of telling you where price is headed, rather than arbitrarily assuming that a high oscillator reading means you should short and vice versa? The longest advances come while a high McO is getting higher and even AFTER McO peaks at a high reading, especially true in Bull Market contexts, so that shorting when it is at a high level can be suicide. Likewise the biggest down moves come when McO is low and falling and even AFTER McO bottoms, especially in a Bear Market context. To buy when McO is at a deep negative number, in a bear market, can be death. But tracking the TREND of the oscillator can be enormously enlightening to a trader.
If you want a discussion by folks who have worked with specific indicators for decades with very positive results, hold that discussion. I for one, would much rather hear from Selecto on how he uses the Bollinger Bands than to just say "Bollinger Bands are useless" just because the way that I had assumed that they "should" work doesn't. Or how Fib uses the advance decline data and a-d volume data rather than just saying "breadth is useless" because my methods with breadth aren't working. Or how Tom uses volume bars rather than just saying "volume is useless" because I can't see how to use volume to lock in my trading profits. Or how NAV uses pivots or Mark uses sentiment. or....well you get the point.
We can fight with each other or we can learn from each other. I'm fairly certain that I've never seen fighting make anyone any money. Regards, D
Edited by IYB, 04 February 2012 - 05:17 PM.
Best, D
