Quote from Corey:
In my opinion, there are two types of traders -- those who use statistics to predict entries and exits based on confidence levels, and those that utilize multiple signals and wait for confirmation.
I have found that those who use the first method tend to be more successful, but only due to the fact that they take EVERY trade signaled (assuming a certain confidence level) and they know the risk level associated with the trade.
Using multiple signals as a way of confirmation often leads to missed trades and hesitation ... hindsight is 20/20 and the confirmations look perfect -- but in real time, the trader just keeps saying, "I will wait until the next confirmation..." which never happens, and they miss the trade... or it does happen, and yet they are not confident enough...
Which gets me to thinking about this indicator ... what does it actually tell us? Everything we are gathering as data, we are gathering in the past -- mass is the volume, velocity is the price movement ... by the time we read this info, it is already in the market. So what does applying it to our model tell us? Nothing, really -- it tells us the exact same thing the market is telling us, just in a different format. The only possible 'edge' you might gain out of this would be using the books to determine the level of 'viscosity' -- and use it to predict what any given input of energy would do. In this way, it might be possible to determine when the market under, or over, reacts. However ... at that point, do you 'reset' your model to the current market, or do you assume the market is out of sync? I suppose it comes down to the concept of reversion to the mean ... but most importantly, deciding how often you redefine where the mean is...