Does that mean a 5 or 10 minute chart would have better plays or be more accurate?
It's not quite as simple as that, but in practice the answer's probably "yes".
M1 charts are full of what many people wrongly call "noise".
There's actually no such thing as "noise": every tick records a transaction, and that's equally true and objective on all time-frames.
But it's also true that the difficulties with interpreting price action are in inverse proportion to the time-frame. This situation arises because bars printed in units of time don't distinguish between high and low transaction-volumes or even between high and low tick-volumes.
On an M1 chart, one bar can easily represent ten times the transaction-volumes and tick-volumes of another. Although that's theoretically true of M5 bars as well, the reality is that the longer the time-frame over which bars are printed, the less that applies and the less significant it is. By the time you get down in time-frame to M1 bars, it's very true and very significant, so their interpretation is harder and less accurate, and results more variable. This is what people are really (sometimes unknowingly) referring to, when they say that M1 charts have "more noise and less signal" than M5 (or longer time-frame) charts.
Realities predicate that trading from M5 bars will give you far fewer signals each of higher reliability than M1 bars. As discussed in great detail in Bob Volman's excellent book "
Understanding Price Action: Practical Analysis of the 5-Minute Time-Frame".
One solution to many of these issues is to use charts which display
volume-bars (ideally) or tick-charts (less ideally, but still better, overall than time-charts).
