To what extent do you use indicators?

I use indicators profitably on the larger timeframes, though not as buy indicators in and of themselves, but as probability indicators of trade outcome.

I've generally seen that the larger the timeframe of study, the more accurate the indicators become (I don't trade intraday).

With that being said, one need only look at a daily chart of the Dow to see how inaccurate the common indicators (RSI, MACD, Stoch) can be at times. Notice the trifecta of overbought/sell-signals back in October, some 700 Dow points ago (ouch!)
Dow daily

The weekly chart offers some saving grace:
Dow weekly

In fact, a simple yet highly reliable strategy is to buy/short the weekly whenever a MACD cross occurs during/after Full Stochs emerges from overbought/oversold. Trading a weekly chart requires a bit more of an attention span than the average ET'er can bear however..

Chart patterns on the daily are of highest profitably for me, specifically ascending/descending triangle breakouts. Here are 3 recent examples, all of which subsequently crossed the 50-day SMA, further confirming the new trend:

Euro breakout
Yen breakout
RACK breakdown
 
Quote from apex82:

Hypothetically, say you have an edge of 70% that when you flip a coin it will be heads. If you flip the coin 7 times and they are all tails. What are the odds that the next flip will be a heads vs being a tails..... The more tails you get the higher the odds the next one will be a heads.

That's not correct. What you've just stated is the Monte Carlo falacy. The odds the next one will be heads is still 50/50.
 
Quote from IronFist:

That's not correct. What you've just stated is the Monte Carlo falacy. The odds the next one will be heads is still 50/50.

Reread my post. I said you have a 70% chance of getting heads over tails everytime the coin is flipped. Think of it as a weighted coin or something. Its a bad example but you should be able to get at what I am saying.
 
Cashmoney,

You said:

"IronFist, from now on when I reply to a thread I feel like I'm going to have to warn not just you, but everyone I respond to from now on that because I was not able to turn a net gain last year, that me, responding to this thread is going to somehow ruin your trading career forever...at least thats what many traders on ET would like to think. "

That suggested to me that you misunderstood Cocaine's advice to you which didn't say the above ... it was more in the line of:

1. Your advice isn't reliable because you don't truly know if it works; and,
2. Giving it may seriously harm your ability to grow as a trader.


And you do give it out with both enthusiasm and a no indication of what a small base of valid experience it might be built on.

A better disclaimer might be:

"Because I, cm69, am yet to turn a consistent profit elements of my advice may be supported by quicksand. They are given enthusiastically and with good intent but may be harmful to yours or my financial health"

Great to hear about your development. The only problem regarding your forgetting the advice you give (well, one of them) is that you might forget it but your subconscious might have become a bit more committed to it because you gave it. Lets not forget the person who listened to it and doesn't know you've since forgotten it.

God, this is starting to sound like a soap opera.
 
Quote from apex82:

Reread my post. I said you have a 70% chance of getting heads over tails everytime the coin is flipped. Think of it as a weighted coin or something. Its a bad example but you should be able to get at what I am saying.

You missed his point. Do a google on monte carlo fallacy.

-Au
 
OK cm, you also asked for "errors." My point in the last post was to try to get across what I felt CC was trying to help you to see but lets try anyway. This is going to be horribly pedantic and I wouldn't bother doing it but you asked so I'll try.


No, I deleted my list. The point isn't the actual errors. The point is the same one that generated my response to you in the prior thread and Cocaines much more generous attempt to help you see the risks in the advice you gave.

Lescor said in response to a problem with picking tops and bottoms:
"You are not trading to make money. You are trading to be right. You are trying to satisfy some urge to be correct."

You, with your enormous experience and proven track record, contradicted him. And the problem with your contradictions was:

"You keep proving my point CM69, once again quoting the ego part instead of admitting what should be easy.

Look, I think that you will be profitable at some point. But until then, the advice you give out may not be sound, considering it hasnt worked for you yet. Wait until you have sustained success and then be a nice guy and offer advice. Think of it this way, the more you repeat things that may not be true (trading advice), the more you may believe something that isnt valid. This leads to bad habits and repeated mistakes and these things get ingrained in your routine. If they are wrong to begin w/, you will have a hardtime breaking them."
 
Quote from Aurum:

You missed his point. Do a google on monte carlo fallacy.

-Au

I understand his point but it is not valid in this scenario. Every flip is independent, 70% chance of getting heads everytime its flipped. How could it ever be a 50/50 chance of getting tails?
 
Quote from Aurum:

You missed his point. Do a google on monte carlo fallacy.

-Au


What's happening is that the points are getting mixed up. Because IronFist went back to a 50/50 coin apex thought he missunderstood one element of what he was talking about which was a 70/30 coin.

But the real issue as you say is the monte carlo fallacy which applies to truly random events without sequential effects. In this case apex's statement:

"After a drawdown is the best time to trade because you have the odds in your favour."

is wrong because the odds never change. They are 70/30 before, during and after a drawdown. Thats absolutely true of a coin whether weighted or not.



BUT

Consider that a trading system operating in the markets is not a series of truly random events. Great and learned debates have been had about this on other boards and I'm going to contribute little to that .... but ... ... most trading systems go into drawdown because the market moves into a phase thats at odds with the system (ie it chops up and ur trading a trend following system) ... ... but the market keeps going from one phase to another and although we can't predict when a choppy phase will end we can predict that the longer it has continued the more likely that it is about to end (note I said more likely, not now or not specifically when, nor absolutely definitely that it will)

so starting to enter a system when it is in a drawdown (or not when its at peak equity) can be very wise advice because the interactions of systems and markets are not simple monte-carlo fallacy style random events.

One should be sure that the drawdown is caused by changes of a cyclic nature not a change like the decimalization of markets or the finish of a stunning bull market before one applies such a rule though.
 
Quote from kiwi_trader:

Consider that a trading system operating in the markets is not a series of truly random events. Great and learned debates have been had about this on other boards and I'm going to contribute little to that .... but ... ... most trading systems go into drawdown because the market moves into a phase thats at odds with the system (ie it chops up and ur trading a trend following system) ... ... but the market keeps going from one phase to another and although we can't predict when a choppy phase will end we can predict that the longer it has continued the more likely that it is about to end (note I said more likely, not now or not specifically when, nor absolutely definitely that it will)

Which is why "trading models are to be believed... but never trusted."
 
Quote from Jachyra:

One of the best traders I ever met used to always say that "trading models are to believed, but never trusted." That little saying has helped me so much over the years that I find myself mumbling it in my head everytime I'm about to pull the trigger.

The thing you have to remember is that the indicators only get you so far. I spent the first 5 years of my trading career trying to find the perfect mechanical approach, or the best combination of indicators, before I finally realized that I was trying to use them as a crutch. I think that a lot of traders try to make trading mechanical, and really kind of abuse their indicators, because letting the indicators do all of the work for you is a hell of a lot easier than trying to actually learn the principles of auction market theory and having to apply them in real time. Its just easier.

The fact of the matter is (at least in my opinion), that there are a lot of things that go on throughout the day, some of which show up in a chart and some of which don't. The indicators can be a big part of it, but its not the only part.

I always find it amusing when I see traders who can tell me what all their indicators say but can't for the life of them spot a simple chart pattern thats developing right in front of their very eyes.

However, if you are convinced that trying to approach the markets in a more mechanical nature is right for you, I would also point out that you should have a similar "long term" perspective that a lot of professional poker players have, and that anyone must have when trying to engage in and "odds-based" business. Just this weekend I was in Las Vegas and played quite a bit of poker. In one day I was dealt pocket aces 4 times, played them pretty well, and still lost with them all 4 times. Does this mean that I should quit playing pocket aces....well only if I want to never play the only hand that I'm guaranteed to be at least a 4 to 1 favorite with, no matter what other SINGLE hand I happen to be up against.

In an odds based business (like trading, poker, or owning a casino or an insurance company) the laws of averages are not the only principles in play. There are also the laws of distribution (or what some people refer to as random walk). This is why if you flip a coin ten times in a row, while we know that theoretically it should come up heads 5 times and tails 5 times, sometimes it may only come up heads 3 times and tails 7 times.....or heads 10 times in a row for that matter. The laws of averages really only begin to become evident as your sample size begins to approach 1,000,000.

From my experience, all the indicators in the world aren't going to get you in a much better situation than A-K vs. an under pair (forgive the poker analogies if you don't play, but its how I think). No matter how you slice it, you're going to be in a coin flip situation, with the indicators helping you to get on the "good side" of the flip (which would be the equivalent of having a pair vs. two over-cards). And its important to remember that having an edge doesn't mean that you're guaranteed to win... it only means that you have a better chance of winning.

So one thing that you must do is determine as to whether or not your set of indicators that you're basing your trading decisions on is solid. If not, well then thats a big problem. But if you have faith in them, then the best thing you can do for yourself is to just not care when you get into a trade that doesn't work out. Even if you have an awesome system you are still going to have a LOT of trades that just don't work out.....just like a poker player isn't going to win with pocket aces 100% of the time. Quite often, those trades that don't work out are going to come in bunches...just like winning trades will often come in bunches. Its not just possible....its probable.

I always tell new traders that you shouldn't be any more upset about a losing trade than a casino would be about having to pay out a single bet at the blackjack table. I mean, even if you have a system that you estimate gives you a 70% edge, you're still going to have to book a loss 30% of the time. If you allow yourself to become distraught every time you have to book a losing trade, you're just not going to do very well in this business.

Excellent. Well said...
 
Back
Top