Nobody else remotely defines a trend that way. You might ask yourself why that is.
Last edited:
"Marketsurfer is correct: There is no Trends!" --- There are only Turns!
- Thread starter OddTrader
- Start date
imo, the definition of trend is not important at all, whether we call it a trend, a movement, a volatility change, a ....
The opening and ending conditions of a trade are important. For always-in traders, the opening and ending of a trade are (swinging) turns.
As long as a trade is completed according to plan based on predefined opening/ending conditions, whether its result is losing or gaining, it's a successful trade!
Just 2 cents!
This is a simplified sample of how I see trend (15 min chart only for visibility):
- I get a signal to go long at 2087 at level 1 (02/07/2017 ES march). At that same moment have fixed rules who tell me that we will go long till "indicator A will reach the level 100". So I know now already that the trend is long and when this trend will finish. The trend will be finished when "indicator A will reach the level 100". So this is not hindsight or anything similar. My prediction is based on calculated mathematical probabilities that show that I will be right at least 8 times out of 10, and even when I will be wrong my exit will be probably before my position will lose money.
- At level 2 my "indicator A reached the level 100" and I got out at 2097. So my prediction was long, it was correct and it took almost the whole move.
- At level 3 (2093.75) I had to go long again until "indicator A will reach the level 100" again. Because it was short before the close I had to take profit at an intermediate high at 2097.
Of course "indicator A will reach the level 100" should be replaced by a far more complex system. I kept it simple to show that trends can be spotted and how you can predict certain things within certain limits. I was in my first trade for almost 4 hours and defined at entry already the rule to exit. I ALWAYS define at entry my exit rule already.
Was I lucky? I have on average 2-3 trades a day based on this principle, but not always with so many points profit because you depend for this from the market. But I always take a big chunk of every move that has enough potential to trade it.
Can I proof this? Yes.
Will I proof it? No.
Why not? Because people who don't believe will, after each partial proof, deny it by telling it was luck and ask more proof. They will ask proof till you give up. That's the strategy they use: ask an deny, ask again and deny again, ask again and deny again, ask again and deny again, ask again and deny again, ask again and deny again, ask again and deny again, ask again and deny again, ask again and deny again, ask again and deny again, ask again and deny again, till you give up....................
And the main reason why you should not proof it? What do you have to win? Nothing. And convincing others (diehards) is impossible and brings you no extra money.
Doe joe haav too haav a Phd to become suksesfool? I don't know, I am not very smart, have no Phd, but with my limited knowledge I (finally) manage to make some money. So I am happy.
PM made typo mistake, date was 02/17/2015 I see now.
Last edited:
imo, a confusion could have been made between trend and momentum.
VN's statistics could be statistically correct that momentum often has greater ongoing power for commodity and currency as well as equity index futures, however (naturally) much lesser for individual stocks.
Another 2 cents!
Thanks for your posts "Ghost_of_Blotto" and "experiencedjoe".
Judging by the negative feedback you guys receive I am quite certain you are doing very well. Everyone is aware of the 95% statistic and it is threads like this that reinforce those statistics.
Indisputably one of the best posts on ET for those who are looking for answers.
The stats are based on equity index futures and individual stocks. surf
I really don't know for certain. There is no inherent upward drift in those markets. surf