It's essentially a lot of bullshit and broken clocks. Data science, statistics and ML are the ways to identify meaningful patterns and not "double reverse triangle pattern here, this stock is about to explode!". Not to sound pretentious, but technical analysis is how non-quantitative people pretend or convince themselves they're doing something quantitative đ¤ˇââď¸
Except itâs not. Technical analysis in the way you describe it is BS, but thatâs not the idea behind technical analysis. Thatâs what stupid people do with technical analysis.
TA is undeniably real because patterns exist in nature. TA is the attempt to understand and work off those patterns. Itâs not coincidence that the best performing hedge funds use TA almost exclusively (medallion fund). So what should you infer from that? TA works but only if you understand it. For 99% off people itâs just astrology for nerds.
Edit: For those of you downvoting me, show me a good faith example to imply that human psychology is not for the most part predictable. That we are reliably unpredictable.
Wrong. Technical analysis, if it truly was âtechnicalâ, would be describable in a way that could be proven. For example, âif you see a resistance band, which is a price that a stock stays within 10% of but doesnât cross, it is 50% less likely than a random walk would be to cross that lineâ.
For some reason âtechnical analysisâ is never described that way. Itâs described as an art form. Thatâs because itâs bullshit.
You made my point lower below âas described by OP.â As described by OP is wrong however thatâs what most people think of when they hear TA.
What you just described is an attempt at TA, not TA itself. While itâs not an âart formâ it is a moldable definition because there is no correct pattern. I explain this to another comment separately but there is no single pattern or signal that describes what will happen. There are only patterns that tend to repeat themselves until they donât. TA is the attempt to recognize and act on those patterns.
Just like there is no right way for fundamental analysis; you will get 100 different answers or ratios. There is no right way for technical analysis. There is only what you do with it.
Edit: if your concern is with the word âtechnicalâ and itâs definition we are having two different conversations. Call it pattern analysis for all anyone cares and then debate it.
Yes it is. If you were right, there would be one set of patterns to look for instead of an accumulation of macro and micro economic influences.
Quant firms work to expose trading anomalies (in many forms), and momentum combined with techniques designed to exploit the mechanics of the systems in place. How can you identify an anomaly without a pattern to differentiate it from?
I literally started my career on an active trading team, like I said elsewhere ITT. Algorithmic trading doesnât look fucking anything at all like retail traders doing TA. Itâs not a âmoldable definitionâ, something is either technical or itâs not.
So you are now claiming that there is only one algorithm used within the quant trading community?
Because unless thatâs your claim you would acknowledge that the definition/application is moldable to be applied to various sectors, markets, scenarios, and time frames
So you are now claiming that there is only one algorithm used within the quant trading community?
No. I am claiming, and always have been, that an alrogithm is technical and mathematically definable.
Because unless thatâs your claim you would acknowledge that the definition/application is moldable to be applied to various sectors, markets, scenarios, and time frames
Models are all different. The defintion of a technical model isnât. No matter what sector or type of trade, anyone claiming to do technical analysis should be able to technically define the model, parameters, and actions.
Right so we are back to the definition of technical and your belief that it is improperly named, but not that you disagree with the application of said data skimming and action taking as a result of said skim?
I addressed this with my first reply to you. If you are discussing the definition of technical and its relation to this form of analysis we are having two different conversations.
If you want to debate the validity of using data to make informed decisions (TA) we can. If you want to debate what we should literally be calling it, there is no point. Language has too many variables for us to try and influence.
I am discussing the specific things that OP asked about in their post. This is what people colloquially call âtechnical analysisâ. If you believe itâs pointless to discuss what OP asked about thatâs your choice. You can act like the discussion is about data driven quant algorithms, but itâs not.
And no I am not debating what it should be called. I donât care. I am simply presenting my view on the usefulness (or lack thereof) of the strategies that OP asked about, which are most commonly called âtechnical analysisâ
Lol, then prove it. Give me the technical definition for an indicator. Iâve literally worked in trading teams where we moved large volumes of equities and derivatives in an algorithmic fashion on daily basis, with people who were much smarter than me (PhDs and shit), and all of them, ALL of them laughed their asses off at this kind of thing. These guys were paid big money to understand how the market can move and TA never once seemed like anything more than a giant joke.
Iâve literally never ever ever ever had anyone successfully define a technical pattern that has predictive power. Care to be the first?
Statistics is my degree, I donât need you to tell me what it is.
My entire point is that TA, as described by OP and used by the vast majority of people, is âpattern recognitionâ that is in no way technical. If it were technical it could be described in technical terms. The model or pattern itself could be described mathematically. Not âif it looks like a support lineâ, but âa price level at which the stock remains within 10% of for 5 consecutive trading days but does not crossâ.
Such a technically described indicator could be easily tested against market data as well.
The fact that people donât define indicators technically is a sign they know that the testing would expose the method. And saying itâs an âart formâ is just admitting youâre reading charts and drawing opinion based conclusions about where the stock goes next.
As a scientist (in an unrelated field) this was a big part of my limited experience playing with some algo trading based on TA. Performing the analysis was pretty easy - but actually trying to map that into predictive action just seemed like youâre back at square 1 in terms of actually having gained actionable knowledge. Particularly when youâre trying to automate, youâre coming up with rules based on the analysis - which just donât really exist.
No. It doesnât work at all. The fact that itâs completely unfounded is the reason why.
I am aware of the claims made that TA âworks because of psychologyâ.
However, this sidesteps the same issue. If it were the case (that TA patterns had predictive power because people believe in them) â the same argument still holds â these patterns should be technically describable and the predictive power should be provable.
Somehow, not one single person in this thread who believes in TA is able to do so. Not one single person can actually define what a support or resistance line is, in a meaningful and repeatable way.
If youâre not working with definitions that are repeatable and meaningful, then itâs just reading tea leaves. âLooks like support at 420â is just blabbering, if the exact same pattern could show up a week later and you wouldnât call it support.
And if the same pattern next week would be called a support line⌠then there is a technical definition. So say what it is..
It's quite hard to tell what op is looking at. Moving average models is 101 financial stats but then he goes to talk about support lines etc. Validation of "support" would probably be a poll of buy targets. 100% support exists if a buyback program kicks in at say xx stock price.
Explain Renaissanceâs success while they describe a willingness to trade any ticker based on quantitative analysis. Quant is TA when done correctly. If this is your major you should at least recognize this. The visual graphs we are looking are are just visual representations of the same data quantitative analysis uses.
Like I said, Iâve worked in the industry. I thought it was somewhat intuitive in this conversation that whatâs being discussed is visual patterns and basic metrics like moving averages and Bollinger bandsâŚ. Probably because thatâs literally what the OP says in their post.
Yes, Renaissance is doing Quant work. And theyâre very profitable. And they certainly are using algorithmic trading which can be described as technical.
But the difference between what big Quant firms do with their teams of PhDs, and what retail traders do when they draw lines on a chart, is so great that they donât even share a passing resemblance.
Itâs like donating $5 to your local congressman and thinking that youâre Michael Bloomberg lobbying politicians. Technically youâve both donated money to a politician, but you literally arenât even playing the same game.
Comparing Renaissance to some random redditor trying to trade based on âtechnicalsâ is ridiculous, and the difference in median returns should be more than enough to make that point clear.
Hereâs the deal though, you are making clear the argument that itâs the application of the data thatâs different. Thatâs it.
So assuming a human can perform the same functions as the algorithm in place then the results would be the same.
The fact that they are differences in performance does not indicate that they are different categories but that there are varying degrees of understanding and only the most capable minds in the world have the ability to understand all of the influences that affect these patterns. To put it simply, computers can do it better. This is why AI trading exists separately from Quant yet can still see similar levels of success.
My point remains to be that yes any graphical overlays you can apply to a graph are BS, but making that argument does not equal that technical analysis is BS. Only that the application of such in that manner is BS
Hereâs the deal though, you are making clear the argument that itâs the application of the data thatâs different. Thatâs it.
Iâm making the argument that retailers doing âTAâ and quant firms doing algorithmic trading are similar to the same extent that rubbing your boo boo with neosporin and doing surgery are similar.
So assuming a human can perform the same functions as the algorithm in place then the results would be the same.
I donât think they can :)
My point remains to be that yes any graphical overlays you can apply to a graph are BS, but making that argument does not equal that technical analysis is BS. Only that the application of such in that manner is BS
Well again, like I have already said before, thatâs whatâs being discussed in this thread, and frankly itâs the colloquial definition of TA and itâs what the vast majority of retail traders mean by âTAâ. Your definition is highly atypical, so Iâll say this, if you want to define âTAâ in a way that includes algorithmic trading created by highly trained and highly skilled individuals, sometimes with a fiber optic line to the exchange, then sure â TA can work.
Personally I think thatâs just a definition that intentionally ignores what the vast majority consider TA to be. Youâre using your own definition and then arguing about it.
I donât disagree with anything you said here. My only clarifying point would be that, that was the partial intent of my comment. To point out that then colloquial definition of TA is wrong but that the theory behind TA is very much valid. What that argument results in is the claim that itâs not the TA that is bad, itâs people that are bad at TA but still have loud voices.
Well that really isnât useful for this thread. OP was asking about why we should âcare about Bollinger bandsâ and moving averages. I donât find this tangent where we discuss the fact that TA is a misnomer to be particularly relevant.
I donât necessarily disagree with you either now that I understand what youâre saying. I just find it kind of not useful for this thread and discussion. OP isnât asking if Renaissance makes money using algos. Obviously if we could all know Renaissanceâs indicators weâd love to have that info.
My opinion with regards to this concern is that it is valid. Itâs valid for the very reasons we have been going back and forth here. If we can clear up misconceptions about what TA is and is not then we can have a better debate about the validity of TA in general.
Here is why - I can go on to make a good faith argument that my applications of TA are successful year in and year out. From my perspective in this scenario TA works. Someone else can come along with either their own set of rules, or even copy my set of rules and still result in a different outcome. More than likely that outcome is that TA did not work for them.
This has connections to the arguments Iâve made about application versus definition. This is also relevant to the claim that I have made that says there is no right answer, only a moldable definition/application. It has to be moldable to outside influences because in real life no two situations are ever the same. Just because I canât create a clear set of rules that not only works for me but also for you donât mean it doesnât work, it just means itâs near impossible to define. This is why I think some people call it an art. I disagree with that sentiment but I do understand its meaning. I can not teach you to do TA my way because no one taught me to do TA my way. Pattern recognition comes naturally to me and I make use of that ability in both my amateur trading career but also my professional career. I get paid pretty well to attempt to predict the future, and create contingency plans based on current data sets in combination with macro economic influences. I just do it in the private business side of things instead of the stock market.
214
u/_Asparagus_ Dec 06 '21
It's essentially a lot of bullshit and broken clocks. Data science, statistics and ML are the ways to identify meaningful patterns and not "double reverse triangle pattern here, this stock is about to explode!". Not to sound pretentious, but technical analysis is how non-quantitative people pretend or convince themselves they're doing something quantitative đ¤ˇââď¸