Anyone use moving average indicators?

I trade via BB's 13 1.5 and 3.0 and a 24ema main direction via M1.

I don't trade crosses that's silly.

I Trade......

1. BB Range, when 24 is pretty flat.
2. Enter with 13 and 24's direction ie existing momentum entry down to the 13 1.5D
3. Enter on price moving to other side of 24
4. BB Squeeze then jump on the break either way.

Took me a few goes at BB's before I could trust them which only recently cracked.

Demo'd all last week went well, Live Tuesday is the plan unless tomorrow goes badly, mondays!!
 
I've been analyzing above and below conditions of 42 different indicators in Excel VBA. This has been part of a development project that I've spent a little less than a year on.

XLFx.png
The image shows part of the current indicator situation with XLF.

M is Simple Moving Average
R is Rate of Change
L is Least Square Moving Average

For example, M07A is the 7 day simple moving average (on weighted price). A means the weighted price is above the average, B would indicate it is below.

The left side of the data is the current situation and the right side shows the history over the period between the start and end dates.

I think looking at this data closely gives one a pretty good understanding of what is going on.
 
Institutions like the mutual funds love 50- and 200-day moving averages. Once the price, especially of the major indices, crosses below the 200-day moving average, it's understood the bear market is officially in play.
 
Saltynuts said:
Anyone have any thoughts?
More...
Someone has asked me to author a booklet on Forex trading, and in the process of watching selected videos to help me with the wording, I ran across a supposedly successful Forex trader (some guy named Patrick who calls himself VP) who has been posting videos on YouTube at least since November of 2018 who makes claims I find to be very similar to my own...


More specifically, his approach stresses the importance of pinpointing the absolute best moving average within a particular time frame to accurately convey the genuine direction in which price is headed, except that Patrick calls this a baseline whereas I call it a gravitational trend line.

Also, his approach relies heavily on ATR, not unlike my reliance on adaptive price ranges. And finally, he advises traders NOT to use the same indicators used by that masses—the same as me—and for the exact same two reasons, at least in part: (1) I cannot see that most of them work all that well when it comes to trading Forex. (I’m not saying that they don’t. I’m just saying that I don’t see it.) And (2) When the market makers come looking for money-making opportunities offered by clusters of orders sitting at whatever levels, they are going to take out your positions along with everyone else’s who is looking at the same Fibonacci ratio, MACD signal line, harmonic pattern, CCI buy or sell signal, stochastic oscillator setup, or what have you.
 
Xela said:
I didn't offer "proof", nor is it realistically possible to do that in a forum. (It can be done, to some extent, by textbooks, and I'll mention a couple of examples of them below.)

Instead, in an attempt to be helpful, I offered a brief explanation of the fallacy on which the "reasoning" of what you quoted actually rests (that's in the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of my post above).

More productively, it would actually help you greatly to read one or two well-established, orthodox, recognised, accredited trading books, such as Tushar S. Chande's Beyond Technical Analysis or even Van Tharp's first book. At some future point, Paul Ciana's New Frontiers in Technical Analysis might also interest and help you.
More...

Having now reviewed (however briefly) material written my Chande and Van Tharp, I find Xela's claim that these "textbooks" would refute my "reasoning" to be a bunch of baloney. And though I did not read Ciana's book, the synopsis listed nothing suggesting to me that his research might shed light on why the system I was developing should have been abandoned, which I am very, very glad I did not do. In fact, a description of his book states: "The methods discussed are based on the existing body of knowledge of technical analysis and have evolved to support, and appeal to technical, fundamental, and quantitative analysts alike."

Given that the existing body of knowledge did not include my ideas, his book is probably more-or-less irrelevant with respect to my system. And as far as Xela explaining the fallacy on which the reasoning of what I quoted rested, those explanations simply evidenced Xela's ignorance in terms of how the components of my system work together. Of course, Xela is no longer around to offer a defense, but that hardly matters since Xela stated having already "...done the little I can."
 
Last edited:
schizo said:
Institutions like the mutual funds love 50- and 200-day moving averages. Once the price, especially of the major indices, crosses below the 200-day moving average, it's understood the bear market is officially in play.
More...
%%
Good points;
most would require a close below ,or close above 200 dma. And {-20 % correction off a major index or SPY= bear}And I would call a {- 19.6% correction same as- 20% +/ }, but would not argue about that .LOL:D:D,:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:[Delayed edit; I'm not that bearish, now,LOL ; its a bull market you know]]
 
Last edited:
Saltynuts said:
I'm trying to read up on these, but most don't seem to be all that great off hand. Anyone have any thoughts?
More...
According to Brian Millard, "moving averages are…extremely powerful tools, but unfortunately the majority of investors have no idea of how to harness this power."

I would not dare to make such a generalized statement, but I have in fact found that how to best put moving averages to use for me personally is unlike most of the available advice that’s out there.

Some traders, such as Nick McDonald of Trade with Precision, recommend employing the same set of moving averages, irrespective of the time frame in which one is trading. For example, Investopedia suggests that the 5-, 8- and 13-bar simple moving averages offer perfect inputs for day traders seeking quick profits on the long and short sides.

Norm Fosback, the former head of the Institute for Econometric Research, states that "there are no magic numbers in trend following... It should be a basic requirement of any moving average trend following system that practically all moving average lengths predict successfully to a greater or less degree."

Indeed, I have often read that the moving average one chooses is not as important as getting familiar with the way in which price interacts with it (or something to that effect).

All of this notwithstanding however, I have arrived at a somewhat rare view of moving averages most closely resembling the thoughts of those who promote the use of a “baseline.”

To paraphrase Global Prime, a baseline is a mechanical way of entering the market and keeping you disciplined in terms of engaging under the right conditions.

But my personal definition starts with cycle theory, which holds that cyclical forces, both long and short, drive price movements, and can be used to anticipate turning points. (According to Brian Millard, Jim Hurst’s work on cycle theory was based in part on a belief that some 23% of price motion is based on cyclic movements which are additive in nature and can be seen clearly if envelopes are constructed around the price movement.)

It also incorporates Edgar Peters’ fractal market hypothesis, which views financial markets as fractal in the sense that they follow a cyclical and replicable pattern. (Fractals might be defined as "fragmented geometric shapes that can be broken down into parts which replicate the shape of the whole.")

So to generate a baseline, I conduct an analysis to uncover these cyclical waves which are formed in the wake of price action, then define their general frequency and magnitude, and finally plot a centered moving average that comes as close as possible to approximating the zero amplitude of the corresponding waves/cycles.

Consequently, the claim that there is no "best" moving average is not a notion by which I operate—opting instead to use baselines which I calculate in the manner just described.
 
Edgar Peters ? Who’s this guy ? Mandelbrot on
“The Misbehavior of Markets” is the one.

expiated said:
According to Brian Millard, "moving averages are…extremely powerful tools, but unfortunately the majority of investors have no idea of how to harness this power."

I would not dare to make such a generalized statement, but I have in fact found that how to best put moving averages to use for me personally is unlike most of the available advice that’s out there.

Some traders, such as Nick McDonald of Trade with Precision, recommend employing the same set of moving averages, irrespective of the time frame in which one is trading. For example, Investopedia suggests that the 5-, 8- and 13-bar simple moving averages offer perfect inputs for day traders seeking quick profits on the long and short sides.

Norm Fosback, the former head of the Institute for Econometric Research, states that "there are no magic numbers in trend following... It should be a basic requirement of any moving average trend following system that practically all moving average lengths predict successfully to a greater or less degree."

Indeed, I have often read that the moving average one chooses is not as important as getting familiar with the way in which price interacts with it (or something to that effect).

All of this notwithstanding however, I have arrived at a somewhat rare view of moving averages most closely resembling the thoughts of those who promote the use of a “baseline.”

To paraphrase Global Prime, a baseline is a mechanical way of entering the market and keeping you disciplined in terms of engaging under the right conditions.

But my personal definition starts with cycle theory, which holds that cyclical forces, both long and short, drive price movements, and can be used to anticipate turning points. (According to Brian Millard, Jim Hurst’s work on cycle theory was based in part on a belief that some 23% of price motion is based on cyclic movements which are additive in nature and can be seen clearly if envelopes are constructed around the price movement.)

It also incorporates Edgar Peters’ fractal market hypothesis, which views financial markets as fractal in the sense that they follow a cyclical and replicable pattern. (Fractals might be defined as "fragmented geometric shapes that can be broken down into parts which replicate the shape of the whole.")

So to generate a baseline, I conduct an analysis to uncover these cyclical waves which are formed in the wake of price action, then define their general frequency and magnitude, and finally plot a centered moving average that comes as close as possible to approximating the zero amplitude of the corresponding waves/cycles.

Consequently, the claim that there is no "best" moving average is not a notion by which I operate—opting instead to use baselines which I calculate in the manner just described.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top