This coronavirus volatility has got me thinking...

[farmerjohn1324]

Wouldn't you have to understand what technical's are before you know they don't matter? And I know you don't know much about technical's, because even something as basic as two EMA's on your chart would clearly show sellers are more in control than buyers on a larger time frame (was more of an advantage earlier on as now the probabilities of short covering rallies and multi-day up moves has increased some), none the less it's still the case.

Every time I've back tested anything, it did not work. If it were as easy as looking for EMA crossovers, everyone would do it.

I've heard people say that technicals only work when fundamentals stay the same. So it makes more sense to me to focus on fundamentals.

I'm willing to learn new things if there's something to learn. But I also don't want to spend my time on a wild goose chase.

 

[FriskyCat]

Explain.

Has any of this market movement lately been explained by technicals?

 

[FriskyCat]

Every time I've back tested anything, it did not work.

Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[farmerjohn1324]

Garbage in, garbage out.

What is the longest-term trade that you think can be based on technicals?

I could see it working if you have a supercomputer that analyzes every scenario 100 times per second. But not to trade based on a human watching the charts.

 

[FriskyCat]

What is the longest-term trade that you think can be based on technicals?

I could see it working if you have a supercomputer that analyzes every scenario 100 times per second. But not to trade based on a human watching the charts.

I don't really understand the question. "longest-term". You could trade off of monthly, quarterly charts. Place 200 MA's on those, watch the slope of them, etc, etc.

There is also a distinction between "technicals" and "systems". Technicals will apply to every type of market, but they require experience to filter what they are telling you. A system might only work in a very specific type of market structure.

 

[trdes]

Every time I've back tested anything, it did not work. If it were as easy as looking for EMA crossovers, everyone would do it.

I've heard people say that technicals only work when fundamentals stay the same. So it makes more sense to me to focus on fundamentals.

I'm willing to learn new things if there's something to learn. But I also don't want to spend my time on a wild goose chase.

Fair enough. It's not easy and it just isn't about two lines crossing you are right. Just think about the logic though, of course two lines crossing if you take every single one you're unlikely to be successful, I mean really of course it isn't that easy. We can agree on that.

Now if you have two lines crossing and also additional requirements, along with proper trading / screen time to actually understand the TA you're using. That's when TA can actually give you probabilities that isn't just throwing darts at two lines intersecting.

For example but not limited to:

#1 Triggers (lines crossing or something that is a set signal indicating a buy or sell)

#2 A way to judge the strength (objectively) of underlining asset so that you have an expectation of your short or buy signal and also you know if you should be taking more buy or more sell signals.

#3 A way to measure means to reversion levels. For example levels that the markets tends to revert back to when you do get a buy or sell signal.

You're trying to learn and understand things that take time and experience. There's not really much someone can do to just transfer all the knowledge over to you in one post, it doesn't work like that.

 

[padutrader]

I would really laugh at anyone who still believes in Technical Analysis after this.

feb 13 i gave a sell here in ET

but you can laugh at a billion or two who believe it works most of the time.

 

[padutrader]

So it makes more sense to me to focus on fundamentals.

I'm willing to learn new things if there's something to learn. But I also don't want to spend my time on a wild goose chase.

if fundamentals remain the same price does not remain the same any idiot knows this.

do not spend time on a wild goose chase,then. do you have a gun to your headd?

 

[farmerjohn1324]

Fair enough. It's not easy and it just isn't about two lines crossing you are right. Just think about the logic though, of course two lines crossing if you take every single one you're unlikely to be successful, I mean really of course it isn't that easy. We can agree on that.

Now if you have two lines crossing and also additional requirements, along with proper trading / screen time to actually understand the TA you're using. That's when TA can actually give you probabilities that isn't just throwing darts at two lines intersecting.

For example but not limited to:

#1 Triggers (lines crossing or something that is a set signal indicating a buy or sell)

#2 A way to judge the strength (objectively) of underlining asset so that you have an expectation of your short or buy signal and also you know if you should be taking more buy or more sell signals.

#3 A way to measure means to reversion levels. For example levels that the markets tends to revert back to when you do get a buy or sell signal.

You're trying to learn and understand things that take time and experience. There's not really much someone can do to just transfer all the knowledge over to you in one post, it doesn't work like that.

So it sounds like you're describing combinations of technical indicators. Which is something I've tried to back test.

1. Moving average crossover
2. RSI
3. Bollinger Bands

It may take time to learn to trade with that profitably... But it takes no time to learn how to back test.

I stopped back testing because it seemed obvious that it was leading nowhere.

 

[trdes]

So it sounds like you're describing combinations of technical indicators. Which is something I've tried to back test.

1. Moving average crossover
2. RSI
3. Bollinger Bands

It may take time to learn to trade with that profitably... But it takes no time to learn how to back test.

I stopped back testing because it seemed obvious that it was leading nowhere.

Yes, it's very difficult to learn all the nuances and to actually learn what indicators to use together. Also, sometime's even back testing strategies that look good, when you move them to live they actually don't work as intended and the results can be different (for a multitude of factors).

So, I am not debating you on the difficulty. It take's some people years and years to find an edge. I am just letting you know that it isn't impossible.