the public are trend followers by default. we all know what happens to the public. all in all a good movie, just don't take the advice of "Trend Following" regards, surf
I think the term "trend following" also implies a certain adeptness at timing. Perhaps that's the part you may be missing?
No the public should follow your advice and try and fade moves and lose everything. How are them YM's short tasting? Look...gold making NEW highs. Right now, the "dumb public" is having a great year being long stocks and gold. Seriously...until you show you have one iota of a clue on trading or how markets work you should pipe down. Maybe just ONE correct market call on your part...then perhaps start talking.
I know nothing of Marketscurf or what he does for a living but I do find his attitude towards Trend Following a little comic. All credit to Michael Covel (whatever his shortcomings may be) in pointing out to the world that there are many, many people out there who have profited handsomely from rule based investing for many, many years. I too have profited from rule based trading (trend following in fact) and have a track record to prove it. Which I am about to have audited. But we all have selective blindness in some areas of our life and I am sure I am no exception.
Actually, I think that's "trend following" according to your sweeping generalization. Don't make me get my broom.
In a profitable trade, TF takes the middle out of a trend - it will go long after the market has started moving up and will exit after the market has started coming down. The reverse for a short. A losing TF trade may well (in retrospect) have bought at a high or shorted at a low. But its a number game as you should know. Try reading Perry Kaufman, Way of the Turtle, or some other book which explains the mechanics of TF. Out of all the books I have ever read about trend following the most helpful was: Chuck Le Beau and David Lucas in their book Technical Traders Guide to Computer Analysis of the Futures Markets. If you want to understand TF, I fear that you have to get technical.
yes, this sounds good. almost zen like, however, try to actually execute the theory. it simply does not stand up to testing. surf
I don't position trade, so it's all too long term for me. However, I'm curious. What size of initial protective stop do you have in mind, generally speaking, for such longer term setups?
Thunderdog You made my day with your new topic for Michael's next book. You are my hero. In my own position trading I use something akin to a 7 to 10 ATR stop. And trade much less frequently than a 20/10 does. And I don't trade a CBO. Not that there is anything wrong with it - I concur with David Druz's view that there are many, many systems out there able to trade trends very competently. However, backtesting of the simple Donchian/Turtle CBO using a 20/10 parameter and the type of filter I suggested shows that even a 2 ATR stop can work as long as you get your commission and slippage right down.