Does anyone trade on a completely blank chart (no indicators) - page 12
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
In fact, it's more about an experienced eye that can see even without indicators, it's like a good maths teacher "sees" solution of any integral or derivative, while students solve them for hours :) and he remembers all variants by heart, he even feels it in his subconscious :)
In fact, the matter is that an experienced trader sees what is shown even without indicators, it's like a good higher mathematics teacher "sees" a solution of any integral or derivative, while students solve them for hours :) But he already knows all variants by heart, he even feels it subconsciously :)
It's almost like that.
An experienced trader does not need anything except the chart to trade by hand. Indicators over and above the chart are necessary for MTS and for a beginner who wants to trade (and who doesn't?) without understanding the market. However, as we know, it did not help any beginner.
TA indicators are a formalization of your vision of the market, your trading experience, your understanding of the processes. Not the other way around. They will not add intelligence and luck to hand trading. They - indicators - will be added by your mind and experience. Or someone else's. But for this you need to thoroughly understand what processes on the market they display, how these alien indicators are arranged. The "buy-switch-on-wank" approach does not work here.
Of course, there are no exceptions. For example, calculation of Fibo levels or channel bounds. But even that, by and large, can be estimated by eye.
Indicators as a researcher's tool are a separate topic. But that is not what we are talking about here.
Sorry for the offtops. It's dangerous to mess with cognacs these days. Recently, I've seen professional tasters make mistakes, i.e. either cognac or cognac essence + flavourings and other bordamaga can't tell the difference... even though the price tags are more or less serious - for 1000 p a volume of about 0.5 l. Perhaps something else similarly hot to take... - some wheat-de-luxe, for example, with a price tag of 500 p for 0.5... Good medicine... Although... I think moderate quantities of Nemiroff and pepper will do.
P.S. Happy Old Style New Year to all, good health and success in business!
1. it's simple - clear your head of the notion of a flat. Only the trend. Price rising or falling.
That's handy. I do it all the time. Within any flat, I can identify micro-trends. And I work with stop orders, because they symbolize trend work for me - once the price has broken something (local extremum or support/resistance line), then (sort of) it should continue this movement and reach the next something (extremum or line...). But lately I've been having my doubts. People say that most of the time the market is in a flat, so - what if we represent the market not as a change of trends, but vice versa as a transition from one flat to another, and correspondingly trade with Limits on these flats? And it would symbolize the opposite - if the price reached something, it should bounce! And you know, it works too, and I even think that it works even better. So, let's imagine it the way you like.
It's almost like that.
An experienced trader does not need anything except the chart to trade by hand. Indicators over and above the chart are necessary for MTS and for a beginner who wants (and who does not want?) to trade without making efforts to understand the market. However, as we know, it did not help any beginner.
TA indicators are a formalization of your vision of the market, your trading experience, your understanding of the processes. Not the other way around. They will not add intelligence and luck to hand trading. They - indicators - will be added by your mind and experience. Or someone else's. But for this you need to thoroughly understand what processes on the market they display, how these alien indicators are arranged. The "buy-switch-on-wank" approach does not work here.
Of course, there are no exceptions. For example, calculation of Fibo levels or channel bounds. But even that, by and large, can be estimated by eye.
Indicators as a researcher's tool are a separate topic. But that is not what we are talking about here.
That's handy. I do it all the time. Within any flat I can identify the micro-trends. And I work with stop orders, because they symbolize trend following - once the price has broken through something (local extremum or support/resistance line), then (sort of) it should continue this movement and reach the next something (extremum or line...). But lately I've been having my doubts. People say that most of the time the market is in a flat, so - what if we represent the market not as a change of trends, but vice versa as a transition from one flat to another, and correspondingly trade with Limits on these flats? And it would symbolize the opposite - if the price reached something, it should bounce! And you know, it works too, and I even think that it works even better. So, that's the way you see it the way you like.
Were you quoting me? If so, I already have a different opinion:)
I agree with you.
Everyone uses indicators in one form or another. Even on a blank chart of a trading instrument.
More recently, I have changed my mind about indicators in the broad sense of the term. The problem is not with the indicators (they say - like TA doesn't work and TA indicators are lying/late, although TA doesn't work for another reason), but in the interpretation of indicator readings. Whatever the indicators show (any) trader's actions are simple - we buy/sell and buy/sell again, that's the problem - inadequately simple interpretation of the indicators. Hence the trouble with fitting and "not working" TS on OOS.
Recent experiments with the evolution of trading systems based on standard indicators, on all sorts of tricky indicators, on Juric and Peters filters, including those based on neural networks have shown (this point is partially illustrated in my article about GA), that the highest stage of development of any TS is a TS that, attention! That is, the best solution not only to make money, but at least not to lose money is not to trade at all. This can be easily explained by tervers on this forum, but from a completely different angle of view on the problem, which does not show exactly the main reason of losses - inadequately simple interpretation of indicator readings (in other words, a trader's trading plan should not be limited to a simple "buy/sell and buy/sell again", but must contain a detailed understanding of how the price will move during the forecasted time period).
I understand I've made a somewhat muddled statement - I apologize, but my thoughts are only in the growth stage (already born), but not yet ripe.
Recent experiments with the evolution of trading systems based on standard indicators, on all sorts of tricky indicators, on juri and peters filters, including those based on neural networks have shown (this point is partly shown in my article on GA) that the highest stage of any TS evolution is a TS which, attention!, does not trade......
Excuse me, were the experiments carried out on humans or not mice?
No animals or people were harmed. :)
Only the computer was pretty badly abused.
No animals or people were harmed. :)
Only the computer was pretty badly abused.
+++++ ))
In fact, you set it right. The less time the system is in the market, the better.
However, this does not mean that not trading at all is the best solution.