Anyone use moving average indicators?

Does anyone use these? Anyone know whether any of them produce better results than just a buy and hold? Even if normally buy and hold is better, I would bet moving average systems would produce much lower drawdowns, particularly when the market is sky high like it is now. Seems like with a moving average, once the price starts to dip, you cover, and don't uncover again until maybe many percentage points more to the downside, thus hopefully missing the next bear market in large part.

I'm trying to read up on these, but most don't seem to be all that great off hand. Anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks!
Most of the traders use moving average indicators I guess, and a lot of them combined it with other instruments, to get an assurance. I use ema 72 and 89 and support it with Bookmap auction map to see if the market stay on the course of the moving averages.
 
I completely agree (if it goes my way afterwards, I can sometimes re-enter, anyway).
%%
Works well, moving averages;
with liquid stuff.......................................................................................................
 
As a take profit place for example it works fine.
Btw, I sew you put this %% a few times, what it means?

%% I use it as reminder i want double digit % gains [ aka %%] cornerstone. By the way, i have made more money off a 200 day /period moving average ,than single digit moving average. NOT a prediction+ not random:cool::cool:
 
I didn't offer "proof", nor is it realistically possible to do that in a forum.
On March 18, 2018 a contributor to this forum named Xela claimed that the foundational propositions on which Numerical Price Prediction was and is predicated (that the best barometers for forecasting price direction are painstakingly selected moving averages; that generally speaking, exchange rates will distance themselves only so far from said moving averages before being compelled to return to more typical deviation levels; and that by correctly interpreting the relationships between said moving averages and correlated price ranges, it is possible to pinpoint where exchange rates have greater statistical odds of reversing direction) were: (1) not true; (2) just wrong; (3) rested on a lack of understanding; (4) mistaken; and (5) basically nonsense.

When I pointed out that simply claiming something is “just wrong” is a weak argument, and asked for proof, Zela replied that s/he wasn’t offering proof because it was not realistically possible to do that in a forum.

(Personally, I believe that if one truly understands something clearly and definitively, one can probably sum it up in a single sentence.)

Zela suggested it would be more productive for me to read books by Chande, Tharp, and Ciana.

Now that I have finished the compete development of my system, I’ve taken the time to look at some of the ideas expresses by Chande and Tharp, and to be honest, I am very thankful I did not allow myself to be sidetracked down either of those rabbit holes since nothing I read that they had to say convinced me that my observations from over a year ago were basically nonsense, and nothing useful I read among the thoughts they shared would have been at all helpful in seeing me arrive at my final destination any faster or with any greater ease.
 
Last edited:
On March 18, 2018 a contributor to this forum named Xela claimed that the foundational propositions on which Numerical Price Prediction was and is predicated (that the best barometers for forecasting price direction are painstakingly selected moving averages; that generally speaking, exchange rates will distance themselves only so far from said moving averages before being compelled to return to more typical deviation levels; and that by correctly interpreting the relationships between said moving averages and correlated price ranges, it is possible to pinpoint where exchange rates have greater statistical odds of reversing direction) were: (1) not true; (2) just wrong; (3) rested on a lack of understanding; (4) mistaken; and (5) basically nonsense.

When I pointed out that simply claiming something is “just wrong” is a weak argument, and asked for proof, Zela replied that s/he wasn’t offering proof because it was not realistically possible to do that in a forum.

(Personally, I believe that if one truly understands something clearly and definitively, in all its various aspects, one can probably sum it up in a single sentence.)

Zela suggested it would be more productive for me to read books by Chande, Tharp, and Ciana.

Now that I have finished the compete development of my system, I’ve taken the time to look at some of the ideas expresses by Chande and Tharp, and to be honest, I am very thankful I did not allow myself to be sidetracked down either of those rabbit holes since nothing I read that they had to say convinced me that my observations from over a year ago were basically nonsense, and nothing useful I read among the thoughts they offered would have been at all helpful in seeing me arrive at my final destination any faster or with any greater ease.

So what you are saying, basically, is that Xela was correct? MA does nothing for you?
 
So what you are saying, basically, is that Xela was correct? MA does nothing for you?

I think opposite, I think he’s saying Xela said MA work, but in his opinion they don’t.

But as i make money from just that, reversion to mean trader, imho Xela is right and he merely doesn’t understand how to profit from.

LONG LIVE XELA!
 
I think opposite, I think he’s saying Xela said MA work, but in his opinion they don’t.
@ Turveyd

I don't know who you are responding to, so it is undoubtedly someone on my ignore list. But for the sake of clarification, I trade using forecast models predicated on the belief that (1) by carefully selecting [or creating] moving averages which accurately convey the direction of price and (2) understanding the relationship between said moving averages and typical price ranges, a retail trader can operate quite profitably in the Forex market by entering and exiting positions based on statistical probability, using the math to determine when the odds are very much in favor of meeting with success.

Xela was of the opinion that this contention was not true, just wrong, rested on a lack of understanding, mistaken, and basically nonsense.
 
MAs generally are too slow, IMO.

I'm experimenting a bit with the MAMA indicator. Still on the fence regarding that one, but I think it holds some improvement over regular MAs.
 
MAs generally are too slow, IMO.
I agree with you 100%!

I tried the Hull moving average, double and triple exponential moving averages, a zero-lag moving average, the fractal adaptive moving average, the MESA adaptive moving average (MAMA & FAMA) and perhaps others I can’t even remember. I found none of them to be completely satisfactory and concluded that if I were ever going to benefit from a moving average that did exactly what I envisioned, I was going to have to learn how to write a little bit of code so I could create it myself, which is what I did in the first half of 2014.

So, though moving averages are generally too slow, I’m quite happy with the ones I use personally…

proprietary moving averages.png
 
Last edited:
Back
Top