Replies to post #19698 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[sgolds]

Doug, I cannot climb that mountain of denial which you put up. Of course there have been many rigorous studies of stock prediction techniques. No, I will not take the effort to find and present all of this to you, it would be a lot of work and I don't think it would matter. Of course various experts have different variations on these themes, refinements of common basic principals they consider proven. Gann does not refute the 50% retracement theory, he attempts to refine it much the same way Einstein refined Newton's laws.

Since your mind is closed on the subject, just have the curtesy to stay on the sidelines in these discussions. Accept that your opinion is the minority view - most knowlegable traders and investors use a combination of fundamental and technical analysis. You are free to be a fundamentals purist.

You may be right. As Ghandi said, the truth is the truth even if it is a minority of one.

[chipguy]

Yes, and my question is, does it really work better than random, blind chance?

No.

Has anyone done RIGOROUS analysis (do you understand experimental design methodology?) of any of these techniques? I doubt it. They usually cite a few examples of where it worked, and ignore the mountain of cases where it would fail.


Economists have examined various TA schemes since the
early 70's and can't find any correlation with historical data.
For a good debunking have a look at "A Random Walk
Down Wall Street" by Burton Malkiel.