This type of mathematics has nothing to do with successful trading. People bury themselves in math and don't understand how simple trading really is.
Does TA work better or worse on lower or higher time frames?
- Thread starter iamnewuser911
- Start date
I don't use less than one minute timeframe for scalping any more, by time a signal to enter, two ticks would have gone by and only tick left...maybe. One minute seems right providing range on one minute are bigger than one tick bars which by middle of lunch till close often are less than two ticks. The last four systems I have developed have been for scalping and all require much more indicators than systems based on monthly/weekly/daily. There is much more forgiving in longer timeframes than when you targeting 1-5 ticks in 60 second charts. Many of those who use TA, believe it is for entry for most part and yet I concentrate on the study of TA and not taking signals, in other words, when to bypass a viable signal when x,y,z happens using a different indicator. Some indicators can just be used for the management of the trade and no where else. Don't recall any books that discuss what else indicators can do besides entry's, so many books now rehashing....
Whether TA works better or worse on timeframes, really depends on one's knowledge.
Whether TA works better or worse on timeframes, really depends on one's knowledge.
I've heard this over the years, and used to regurgitate it as well.
Is there really "noise?"
1. The charts are just a record of the prices that real and actual trades took place over time and the amount of shares involved. A record of a market places purchases/sells. Where is the "noise?" What is this "noise?" Why would some trades be labeled as "noise," and not others? Who makes that determination?
2. Assuming this "noise" exists, and dissipates when you group the trades into larger categories for analysis (looking at longer timeframe charts); then this would imply that HFT's are successfully trading "noise." How can that be possible? And to a lesser degree, day traders would also be successfully trading noise.?
That makes absolutely no sense, and is wildly contradictory to my experience. If anything, charting longer timeframes should give the trader the confidence and conviction to stay with his bias.
Pure semantics. Use the term “choppy” if you’d like.
Modern HFT’s have to deal with “choppy” “noise” [insert your favorite descriptive term here] as well :
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowled...im.model.doc/c_ts_time_series_algorithms.html
A movement in price that the trader doesn't have the ability to read is what he calls noise or chop. But, when his chart reading ability improves, noise and chop disappear!
Last edited:
Ok, what do you mean by the trader not having the ability to "read" the price movement. It's on the chart, no?
All price action features consolidation points, corrections, and retracements. It’s an unavoidable and even quite necessary Universal tenet.
In fact, an old mentor of mine once schooled me that he wouldn’t buy into a rally or short into a sell off without a retracement or correction because it’s providing the volume or fuel to sustain that market thrust.
In fact, an old mentor of mine once schooled me that he wouldn’t buy into a rally or short into a sell off without a retracement or correction because it’s providing the volume or fuel to sustain that market thrust.
Generally, people call noise what they can't handle, or won't handle.