you continually misinterpret trendfollowing. you clump all trend following as: CHASING PERCEIVED PRICE MOMENTUM. simply buying any stock going up does NOT define trend following. great trend followers don't fire off buys on every upticking stocks and many don't base decisions on price alone. selection is based on other variables, something that you are missing. you are trying to define trendfollowing into your narrow interpretation of markets which are soley price based.
mke cov*l author of the best selling "tr*nd follo*ing" defines tr*nd f*llowing as buying new highs/selling new lows and stresses that PRICE is the only thing that needs to be followed. he reached these conclusions after interviewing 100's of the top tre*d follo*ing traders. no one else has defined tren* foll*win@ so, this is the accepted definition. surfer
if i buy a stock on a price downtick or pullback, then according to yours and covel's definition, i am not a trend follower?
that disproves covel. trend followers buy pullbacks. therefore, covel's interpretation of momentum trading (buying highs) as definiton of trend following cannot be accepted.
Give it a rest Smurf. That is an antique definition of Trend Following that doesn't apply any longer. You refuse to progress in your thinking because you can't see any further than the end of you nose.
well, then, would you or anyone care to float a new definition of the term "trend following" ? thanks, surfer
First one must start with an unwavering way to define"Trend". Trend following is a procedure. To do that one must have a way to distinguish the difference between oscillations that verify the extreme tops and bottoms in price movement and the noise or minor oscillations that occur in between those extreme tops & bottoms. I offered to show you how to do this and you scoffed at even looking at it. Others have asked I explained it and the information in found in my posts here in ET. Get to work and look for it. Then one has to understand that "Trends" only exist on the individual chart you are working with. A Trend on a 500 Volume Bar Chart is not the Trend on a 300 Volume Bar Chart. Trends exist on one chart at a time. A Trend on a 5 Minute Chart is not the Trend on a 30 Minute Chart. Trends exist on one chart at a time. To determine the Trend one need to be able to plot, at a minimum, 3 to 6 extreme oscillation outcomes of any market. Once a Trend is Confirmed from sequentially reading the extreme tops and bottoms, either Bull or Bear, then trade accordingly. i.e. Buy - Minor support oscillations toward the last HH in a Bull Trend. Sell - Minor resistance oscillations toward the last LL in a Bear Trend. These two are both low risk and extremely high value trades but the secret is to first perfectly define the trend. Almost all traders forget that without the market creating a HL in a Bull Trend the market could not make a HH and without the market creating a LH in a Bear Trend the market could not make a LL. Trends move & maintain themselves one oscillation at a time. From Support to Resistance and from Resistance to Support. All of your, and others, snide remarks regarding Trends all stem from the fact that you can not define Trends with any consistency. I understand that. How can trends exist if you can't define them? They can't!!! But you and a whole generation of random walkers won't even consider the possibility of a procedure that gives one the ability to define them. Your attitude is, if I don't look at it then I can say it doesn't exist. That is fine and if you want to go around touting that "bury your head in the sand" attitude . . . cool. But don't have the ignorance to believe everyone in the world wants to bury their head in the sand like you and Victor does. There are a great number of traders both independent and institutional that look for what they know is built into the price movement structure . . . consistency. I probably wasn't the first to define it and I'm damn sure not the last.