I think I understand that a stock can be considered to be trending if it is showing higher highs and higher lows (or visa versa) over a number of time periods (bars, hours, minutes days, etc). My question is how many periods does this have to happen for a stock to be actually trending? If it shows higher highs and higher lows for three bars, is this trending? Thanks
1 bar isnt enough info data to base anything on, irrelevant of TF your looking at a low, then a vague boob shape to a higher low and back up again to to new high, atleast 20 bars if not 100. I used to just use 21ema on a 1day chart many many years ago, effective enough to work.
Thus the elegance and simplicity of trading Each participant..., in complete control to define their individual nirvana..., or samsara ========= Trend is how you define it... anywhere from a tick - up to decades..., even over a century RN
let me to rephrase your question: "What is definition of the trend in a specific (not a general) terms? " the correct, specific answer to this question is a fundamental to the real trading method that's why you will not get the usable (correct) answer , since those who know the answer will not tell, those who'll tell - do not know
You seem to have it but just to clarify, you need a minimum of four points. For an uptrend, the second and third points must be higher than the first point and the fourth point must be the highest of all of them. For a downtrend, the second and third points must be lower than the first point and the fourth point must be lowest of all. Note that the relation between the second and third points (I.e., whether you have a higher low for an uptrend or a lower high for a downtrend) doesn't really matter. It's just that momentary reversals don't matter so long as they don't go too far. The first point must be the lowest for an uptrend or the highest for a downtrend.
But market forces say stock is in a downtrend had been for 6months, market forces could push it to a higher higher, higher low and the downtrend could still be valid, it's not an exact science sadly.
The measurement of a trend is entirely dependent on sampling rate and sample length. In other words, there is no such thing as the trend. There are trends within trends and they can go in either direction and be of any duration. So yes trend analysis can get complicated ... but it doesn't have to.
Correct! Stocks I used to use the D1 trend mainly based on 21ema, then I'd use a M5 chart intraday to pick entries with the D1's trend, but stocks are slower and more purpose full as less news out specifically for them, just pulled around by the market itself. ( A LONG time ago nearing 15years, before SEC rules ) Used to do well very well lived off it for a while. Index's / Forex my current game, I'm a M1 SMA 10 and 42 Trader that's how I determine my 2 trends, Index's and FX are just to damn changeable, too much news and markets opening bla bla bla. Don't like the idea of Multiple Time Frame trend reading, sounds like confusion to me, waiting for them to line up, just to much work and to wasteful.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% More to it than this, as you imply ; but to say a 200 dma does not work , because its is mentioned is open to debate,LOL