You expected an answer based on experience, evidence, and academic corroboration would all refute your claim? You asked how we view the ema type systems, and whether they are better than random, I gave my response; maybe someone has a better view. I'm always open to learn new things.
I've shown you an explicit chart pointing out what my eyes see, and precisely why it can be misleading (at least from my POV). I didn't feel the need to show a full blown backtest, as I assure you I've been through the exercise many times.
You were not (and still are not) clear on what you mean by non-random.
Can you be more precise? Bounces looking random. What does that mean?
If I see a bounce appear in hindsight, it could have not been formed by random processes? If I run a random walk and overlay some filters, I will still see bounces.
By it's very nature, any time series that has sharp hf noise features will bounce off an overlaid low pass filtered version at various points; random or not. You can pretty much go backwards and optimize the filter bandwidth to make it bounce anywhere you want.
I think you need to put up the chart as your eyes see it, and then define
precisely what you mean by random/non-random. And to put it in more useful context, define entry and exit rules. Then we can be on objective grounds to draw conclusions. Fair enough?
I'm well aware of the FED study, which has absolutely nothing to do with your first claim. So let's stay on track, shall we?
As far as I am concerned, looking at something and determining whether or not it is random is far from any reliable 'acid test.' I'm not here to engage in any shouting match, and your tone is civil, so I respect that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it worked out for you; congrats.
But telling me you made money doesn't really convince me that ema crossovers work any better than myth, I'm afraid.
