Rating: 
- A good place to start
This book is a great place to start if you know nothing about technical analysis. It is very well organized, and the quizzes help to reinforce the lessons of the text. Meyers starts with basic chart construction and the types of charts, moves through reversal and consolidation patterns, gaps, trendlines and channels, and support and resistance before taking on any computed indicators. Next he moves through moving averages, relative strength, and volume indicators, and finally oscillators. He then digresses to cover point-and-figure charting and candlesticks before concluding the book with a discussion of market and sentiment indicators. Once this material is mastered, the more detailed discussions of Murphy or Edwards and Magee will make a lot more sense.
Rating:
- Outdated, Inaccurate, Expensive
I'm so sorry I spent hard-earned money on this book, I wish I had read the reviews here first. I can find very little use in today's market for a collection charts on stock movements from 20 years ago. Of course, history can be a guide, but nothing in this book takes into account all of the changes in trading technology. Most of the "tips" here date from a time when there was no program trading, and no one did any trading at home via the Internet. If you attmept to do technical analysis by calling your full service broker, perhaps you will find something useful in this book (once you get past the series of errors, there are plenty of them). I learned much in the stock market from my bad trades; I just learned something about book buying from this completely regrettable purchase.
Rating: - Not Very Useful
This books seems to have been written to explain the stock market movements during the 1980s. There are a few theories to explain movement of NYSE big board stocks, and almost no coverage of NASDAQ. If you try to map these theories to the NASDAQ-fueled boom ending in 2000 or the slump since then, the author's weakly defined premises break down entirely. This book would have been useful in 1982, but I need to trade in the 2003 market. No help here; in fact, much of it is counter-intuitive. I tested it with a sampling of 10 stocks over a three month period ending in early March 2003. Using the "methods" described in the book, one would have lost money on 9 out of the ten trades (whether long or short). These trades netted an average loss of 28%. The one winner gained 11%. I could not afford to stay with this book's technique's for very long. To be fair, I then tested the methods on 10 more stocks from 1999-2000, when the market was booming. Again, the author's methods failed. Seven losers, averaging 32% loss, two winners averaging a 17% gain, and one break even. Save yourself from market losses, and the loss of money wasted on this book.
Rating: - Badly Organized Jumble of Techniques
This book was assigned reading for a college-level investing course; now I understand why the professor drives an old car and teaches this class instead of making money in the market. In all my years of schooling, I've never encountered something so poorly assembled. I have unearthed a few useful concepts, but they are largely buried in an pile of tired market cliches and chart after chart of dated 1980s investing patterns.
There are many other books on the topic (you can do a search on "technical analysis" right on this Amazon site) that are both current and accurate. I keep a lot of my textbooks after finishing a course, I find them to be useful references. This one will go immediately to the used section of the campus bookstore.
Rating: - Dated Treatment of "Tech Analysis Lite"
Much of this book contains some very tired theories on stock movements from generations ago. While stock patterns may have some historic trends, it is a gross oversight in failing to consider how computerized trading has affected both patterns and the timing of trades. This book would have had some use in 1975, but it will hinder the modern technical trader, who must compete with others using state of the art technology. And as others have noted, the text is rife with errors.
- A good place to startThis book is a great place to start if you know nothing about technical analysis. It is very well organized, and the quizzes help to reinforce the lessons of the text. Meyers starts with basic chart construction and the types of charts, moves through reversal and consolidation patterns, gaps, trendlines and channels, and support and resistance before taking on any computed indicators. Next he moves through moving averages, relative strength, and volume indicators, and finally oscillators. He then digresses to cover point-and-figure charting and candlesticks before concluding the book with a discussion of market and sentiment indicators. Once this material is mastered, the more detailed discussions of Murphy or Edwards and Magee will make a lot more sense.
Rating:
- Outdated, Inaccurate, ExpensiveI'm so sorry I spent hard-earned money on this book, I wish I had read the reviews here first. I can find very little use in today's market for a collection charts on stock movements from 20 years ago. Of course, history can be a guide, but nothing in this book takes into account all of the changes in trading technology. Most of the "tips" here date from a time when there was no program trading, and no one did any trading at home via the Internet. If you attmept to do technical analysis by calling your full service broker, perhaps you will find something useful in this book (once you get past the series of errors, there are plenty of them). I learned much in the stock market from my bad trades; I just learned something about book buying from this completely regrettable purchase.
Rating:
- Not Very UsefulThis books seems to have been written to explain the stock market movements during the 1980s. There are a few theories to explain movement of NYSE big board stocks, and almost no coverage of NASDAQ. If you try to map these theories to the NASDAQ-fueled boom ending in 2000 or the slump since then, the author's weakly defined premises break down entirely. This book would have been useful in 1982, but I need to trade in the 2003 market. No help here; in fact, much of it is counter-intuitive. I tested it with a sampling of 10 stocks over a three month period ending in early March 2003. Using the "methods" described in the book, one would have lost money on 9 out of the ten trades (whether long or short). These trades netted an average loss of 28%. The one winner gained 11%. I could not afford to stay with this book's technique's for very long. To be fair, I then tested the methods on 10 more stocks from 1999-2000, when the market was booming. Again, the author's methods failed. Seven losers, averaging 32% loss, two winners averaging a 17% gain, and one break even. Save yourself from market losses, and the loss of money wasted on this book.
Rating:
- Badly Organized Jumble of TechniquesThis book was assigned reading for a college-level investing course; now I understand why the professor drives an old car and teaches this class instead of making money in the market. In all my years of schooling, I've never encountered something so poorly assembled. I have unearthed a few useful concepts, but they are largely buried in an pile of tired market cliches and chart after chart of dated 1980s investing patterns.
There are many other books on the topic (you can do a search on "technical analysis" right on this Amazon site) that are both current and accurate. I keep a lot of my textbooks after finishing a course, I find them to be useful references. This one will go immediately to the used section of the campus bookstore.
Rating:
- Dated Treatment of "Tech Analysis Lite"Much of this book contains some very tired theories on stock movements from generations ago. While stock patterns may have some historic trends, it is a gross oversight in failing to consider how computerized trading has affected both patterns and the timing of trades. This book would have had some use in 1975, but it will hinder the modern technical trader, who must compete with others using state of the art technology. And as others have noted, the text is rife with errors.