Anyone who follows RSI, MACD, Fibonacci retracements, moving-average crosses, candlestick formations, “support,” or “resistance” as a predictive investment framework is ignorant of the evidence and uneducated in statistical inference. That is not disagreement—it is methodological illiteracy.  
  
25,988 strategies. Almost all the profits disappeared.  
  
Kuang, Schröder, and Wang tested 25,988 technical strategies across ten emerging foreign-exchange markets. Standard tests produced hundreds to thousands of apparently profitable rules. After correcting for data-snooping bias, almost all of the alleged profits disappeared.  
  
[https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/66242/](https://t.co/yv2lg0lWmI)  
  
Yesterday’s winner could not be selected tomorrow.  
  
Bajgrowicz and Scaillet revisited technical-trading rules on the Dow Jones Industrial Average from 1897 through 2011. Their persistence tests found that an investor could not have selected the future best-performing rules in advance. Even the in-sample performance was completely offset by low transaction costs.  
  
[https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X1200116X?via%3Dihub](https://t.co/5NdPkPfq4t)  
  
Only two of 17 futures markets survived the reality check.  
  
Park and Irwin evaluated technical-trading rules across 17 U.S. futures markets from 1985 through 2004. After correcting for data-snooping bias, the best rules produced statistically significant economic profits in only two of the 17 markets.  
  
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fut.20435](https://t.co/A61T77kAjR)  
  
Your chart does not predict the market. It redescribes what already happened and lets hindsight, confirmation bias, multiple testing, and overfitting cosplay as intelligence.  
  
Price, volume, volatility, liquidity, and positioning can inform legitimate regime and market-microstructure research. Arbitrary lines, magical ratios, and indicator thresholds do not become causal evidence because a self-appointed guru put them on a candlestick chart.  
  
Publish the frozen rule, every failed variation, true walk-forward results, realistic slippage and costs, benchmark comparison, and an audited live record—or stop calling hindsight “alpha.”  
  
Stop funding chart gurus. Demand falsifiable, point-in-time research before risking capital. Follow Poorman’s Paradox—Beyond Consensus, Beyond the Obvious.  
  
[\#TechnicalAnalysis](https://x.com/hashtag/TechnicalAnalysis?src=hashtag_click) [\#Investing](https://x.com/hashtag/Investing?src=hashtag_click) [\#MarketResearch](https://x.com/hashtag/MarketResearch?src=hashtag_click) [\#BehavioralFinance](https://x.com/hashtag/BehavioralFinance?src=hashtag_click) [\#QuantitativeFinance](https://x.com/hashtag/QuantitativeFinance?src=hashtag_click) [\#PoormansParadox](https://x.com/hashtag/PoormansParadox?src=hashtag_click)

Technical analysis is financial astrology for people who confuse looking at a chart with conducting research.