Recommend me a Technical Analysis book

[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

[Jourdain]

You might want to check out technical analysis of stock trends by robert edwards.

It is not a flashy glossy book, rather boring and somewhat complex sometimes but great material.

[Objectothis]

Evidence-Based Technical Analysis is a good read that present some of the philosophical problems with TA. It also presents a more statistics-based alternative approach to analyzing markets that can lead to actual edges in the market.

Most large hedge funds don't "depend" on TA to make money. But most large hedge funds use it to varying degrees.

[thehun69]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

Barron, excellent post. It's not about not chiming in. Just the fact is, this was a very simple thread asking for TA books, and I think somewhere along the line, assumptions were made about the OP. For all we know the OP could be an equity analyst sick of using fundamental models and wants to try something new, we don't know, nor should anyone have made those assumptions.

What irked me about this thread was that two seconds in ( for someone looking to learn about TA, which was encouraging to me so that I can help someone and have a discussion about the analysis that I'm comfortable with )all of a sudden it becomes, "well don't use it, it's useless, use FA because that's what Buffett uses and bla bla bla Buffet Buffet Buffet" It irked me because those kinds of posts really go in the opposite direction of what these discussions boards are for, and how they can be most useful. I'm not saying that TA is the only thing and to completely disregard FA, but for Desert Cat to come in and state, oh don't use it, use FA because Buffet...those kinds of posts limit the mind and restrict the usefulness of these boards, and then you came into the fray as well. My original upset does lie solely with Desert Cat by trying to limit someones mind and limit their learning about the market. My way or the highway posts make for lousy boards. If the post was along the lines of "I have found FA to be useful and here is a good book recommendation" then that's fine and in the spirit of a good discussion, but to dismiss it because some investment hero doesn't do that makes for lousy conversation and detracts from the usefulness of these boards. At the end of the day, I know your intentions are well, and that you are trying to present both sides, but in this case, I think the it wasn't in the right context.

THE HUN.

[DrNo888]

Wow! I didnt mean for this to start a TA vs FA thread.
FWIW, I consider myselft a novice investor. I used to subscribe to IBD a few years back, but have not read it since due to work and spending more time with family. Not sure if I want to subscribe again as they raised the price quite a bit.
Anyways, thanks for all those who responded with recommendations. Pring and Murphy were the two books I had written down before making this thread. I will checkout the others when I go to the book store.
I think will get Murphy's, but will decide on the others.

[Evan]

Guys, if someone asks for TA books that's REALLY not the place for this TA vs. FA holy war. I think it would make a fine thread of it's own, but I don't get why it's going on here.

[pig4bill]

IBD has very little T/A imo, and doesn't really "teach" it.

You can subscribe to Chart of the Day for free, and get some things from that. Also TeleChart 2000 (or whatever it's called now) has free seminars/sales pitches throughout the country, and their products have instruction as well. Same for Esignal.

As for the Murphy book first recommended, I consider that a reference, which is usually hard to learn from. Murphy's The Visual Investor is geared towards beginners and easy-reading. I would suggest getting both of those books.

[thehun69]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow! I didnt mean for this to start a TA vs FA thread.
FWIW, I consider myselft a novice investor. I used to subscribe to IBD a few years back, but have not read it since due to work and spending more time with family. Not sure if I want to subscribe again as they raised the price quite a bit.
Anyways, thanks for all those who responded with recommendations. Pring and Murphy were the two books I had written down before making this thread. I will checkout the others when I go to the book store.
I think will get Murphy's, but will decide on the others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good choice. As I said, the Murphy book gives you a better and broader scope of TA, not only chart analysis. The Pring book gives you mostly chart reading. However for THE primer on momentum indicators, Market Momentum is an awesome book. Pring is a nice guy; I met him after a lecture he was giving.

THE HUN.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

My original upset does lie solely with Desert Cat by trying to limit someones mind and limit their learning about the market. My way or the highway posts make for lousy boards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't try to limit anyone. I just pointed out to a novice that there is another approach used by very successful investors that he might want to examine. I did make a snarky response to Mr. Baseball's snarky response.

I'm happy to have all the TA guys here have their TA discussions. But for every successful TA practitioner there are also unsuccessful ones, probably many. And I think you all know that TA is beloved by and promoted by brokerage firms because it promotes heavy turnover and reaps lots of commissions from their customers. I think those firms propagate a lot of misinformation because of that. So when a newbie comes onto the board I like to counter some of this brokerage propaganda to make sure they first try to read a general purpose investing book.

And I'm not telling people "TA sucks, do FA". My standard advice is to practice passive portfolio investing with index funds. Just because I might be successful with FA doesn't mean everyone can be, there is a lot more to it than reading financial statements, esp. psychologically, and few people are willing and able to make the proper commitment to succeed at it. Most people should just not be active investors or traders.

When I first started posting here I definitely thought TA was worthless, given the large amount of academic research that showed little evidence it works. But Sniper and others here convinced me I don't know everything about TA, and there can be some successful individual TA practitioners. Just as academic research shows that most "value investment" funds have trouble beating the market while the skilled guys like buffett crush it. I think that both TA & FA are dangerous in the hands of a newbie who doesn't know what they are doing.

I'll leave the remainder of this thread to TA folks talking about TA.

[thehun69]

Desert,

Well said...I'm thinking group hug?

THE HUN.