Go Lead (Pb), leave 'em for dead., page-19

I'm probably going to be hated even more on these forums for saying this.

For the most part, TA is a bunch of nonsense, with the underlying problem summed up really well in that opening sentence. "Charting is in the eye of the beholder" (not meant to offend).

I've very rarely seen anyone post a methodical TA setup, that has statistically significant data (and appropriately collected) data with associated distribution charts to show that the said method has a defined edge that is worth exploiting. I.e. what's the point in for example saying "the combination of x factors indicates that price will move higher!" when really this is just in "the eye of the beholder". Is there future predictive power in setup x? How am I to know, that if I bought into setup x, that over time, my account won't go backwards, and that any beneficial moves aren't attributed to luck? People can argue that it is just a "guide", but an guide for what? You rarely know with a high degree of confidence if there's a higher chance of setup x going higher, it's just a gamble based on data-less false pretense, and it is often a false self-verifying idea that is used to try and confirm someone's bias.

The frustrating part as well, because it is in the "eye of the beholder" and often really subjective, it is at times, near impossible to gather data to disprove someone's subjective idea to show them that they are wrong. So the idea then carries on, people latch onto it and no one knows any better that it will in fact cause damage over time. Part of the problem as well is "reading charts" is easy to "learn", and a lot of people think they can become overnight experts by, for example, "learning" that a specific MACD + RSI combination means price may go higher or price may go lower. I've also noticed that in general the fancier and more complex a setup looks on a chart, the more "authoritative" someone is determined to be on the idea. I can guarantee (and have data to prove) that complexity (or more layers) an idea has, the more likely it is to fail. This also lures people in to think that others are "subject experts", when really they aren't. It should come down to data, data, data, otherwise literally what is the point? It just becomes meaningless word salad, and Bill for example, seems to be an expert at word salad.

Winding back to his post on silver, how ridiculous does this sound?

1) "Once those resistance points are cleared, little technical resistance remains. A monthly close above $30 could soon be followed by a retest of $50".

- He is a would/should/could guy. No one knows whether a close above 30 will cause a retracement or a bullish move. So what's the point? There is
literally no value in this. And if it goes the opposite way to what he thought, he'll just attribute it the opposing move to some other nonsense for self-
verification (frustrating). Would you bank on this statement and buy silver?

2) Silver could leave the launch pad as gold approaches $2,500 (no value in this). Since impressive silver advances are known to lag new highs in the gold market by several months, theta-related, time-decay investments may be less suitable for this opportunity (fancy distracting options word salad with no proof, probably very difficult to confirm from low sample sizes).

3) Silver show should commence!, 'It's the most bullish thing l've ever seen in my life", "silver could leave the launch pad".

- All really cringe and to be honest, embarrassing statements from Bill. He can't keep his emotions in check.

Generally, the best and most long term successful trades and investors that I know undergo rigorous statistical analysis and have very strong evidence to back an idea. Anything else is literally just gambling.

Scrunched up chart was also due to being on the run, apologies. No access to my platforms while on the move.