[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my personal leaning is obviously away from something that can be so easily fooled.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I responded in this thread, as I know Desert Cat feels the same way as you. Yes, both of you use FA in your analysis of stocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't trade stocks. i don't analyze stocks. and thus, i tend to steer fairly clear of individual stocks. i implement my views of equities though in indices or derivatives on indices.

[ QUOTE ]
I am one of a handful of people here who do use TA instead. We have been over this pissing contest before of TA vs. FA and I don't want to go over it either.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's all i meant when i said "don't wanna hash it out again." etc.

[ QUOTE ]


That being said, what is disconcerting is the fact that the two of you have said that you both lean to FA, and that is fine. The OP had asked for some TA books. Why chime in? Why not let the TA's out there give the OP advice and move on?

[/ QUOTE ]

the best argument i can give is kimchi's i think: ignorance of TA may hamper returns. ignorance of FA (or more precisely, the faults of TA) may also hamper returns. thus it is worth pointing out the faults of both when requests to learn about one come up.

[ QUOTE ]

Instead, it is both you and DC that jump into the fray of "oh TA is nothing but tea leaves and FA rules all because it's logical and depends on numbers, and of course EVERY single trader on the planet is using the EXACT same models acting rationally all the time, so if those models state something is undervalued jump right on in, look at Buffett as aparently no one else on the planet can make money in the stock market using any other type of analysis". That is what is disconcerting. I keep hearing of how that type of analysis is what you use, and Desert Cat. Fine. Use it. But if someone wants to learn TA, and know some books, then let those who are knowledgeable about the subject be helpful and post some suggestions without starting up the usual pissing fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats fair and i apologize for jumping in with the pissing fight. i just wanted to point out the faults so OP is aware.

i've stated very clearly that it is possible to make money off TA and that, while i personally don't advise that direction, there is nothing wrong with learning about it. just know both sides.

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
like i said, TAs can be extremely successful and i don't want to have another conversation about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then don't chime in.

THE HUN.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, sorry for bringing this up again. i just felt both sides should always be heard and known. note that i never said one is better than the other. i just said that some of the smartest people, nobel prize holders, fields metal (and various other prizes for math & physics) holders all feel similarly about "chartists." knowing both viewpoints is important and that was my intention.

just as i've studied TA briefly in at least finding how it works, what may drive returns, and talking with mrbaseball and yourself on this board to learn about options usage and strategies in that context, it may behoove a newcomer to learn about why TA may have false positive returns.

i think i've been wrong in chiming in as i should leave well enough alone. DC also, but the fact remains that i'm a human, just the same that drive markets, and make mistakes and post by emotion at times.

this thread being one of those times.

so i'm sorry for bringing my views here. if you really don't think i should point out anything about the views of others, let me know and i'll 100% steer clear of all TA postings. i think knowing what i've learned from reading intelligent people's thoughts is important, but i can see where it may not be appropriate in a thread entitled: "recommend me a TA book"

Barron