Quote from spike500:
All depends on how you measure the strength (or the momentum). Your conclusion is correct if you measure the strength by using MAâs or MACD, but as I donât use them I donât have that problem often, and there is always a stop in caseâ¦.
I divide trend in different strengths, and for each strength I have different entry and exits. As my strength is measured rather fast I stay most of the time in line with the prices. The fact that I only enter a trade at the optimal point of my system, gives me some space to see what will happen. That gives me the advantage that I can get out fast and most of the times before losing a lot of money.
The basic of a good trend following system is a system that defines the trend fast and accurately. This causes normally a problem, because fast means that it can reverse fast, it can whipsaw, reverse too soon, and signals can become unreliable. Thatâs why the system evaluates the strength and shifts to another scenario when the strength changes according to my decision table.
If you compare measuring the strength by a MACD with my method, I will probably get several warnings of a changing trend even before you see it in the MACD. But once the strength is developing I shift to another scenario and automatically the system is adapting itâs exit accordingly to the strength of the trend. I think it is impossible to have 1 system that trades well in all different kind of markets. Thatâs why I have build so many different scenarios.
Maybe a bad example, but better a bad one than none at all is the following:
You are driving in the mountains. To travel fast and comfortable you will have to adapt your speed in function of the inclination of the road. If the road is flat you can go in fifth gear, if the road goes up at 25% you will be forced down to the second gear. My system studies the road and says which gear is optimal for fast and comfortable travelling. But as the road changes constantly my system checks constantly to see if the actual gear is optimal or not.