I mean the results I just said had less than a 52% win percentage and had a 55% win percentage before that. In day trading, supply and demand's the tell, so back testing the purest information the market gives you should be profitable.
Why cant a simple formula determine context better than a human. Or, maybe a human that gets stuck..ha. Say I design bands , surrounding and slightly offest by a small factor from the highs and lows of price bars on both hourly and daily bars. Always in , I sell at a top band tag of both hourly and daly bars and buy at the bottom tag of the hourly and daily . Two timeframes in play. Maybe in a day or two the net trading results indicate that in the present context it is better to go either long or short and I trade that way until the context filter changes. Is this bullshit or not? Maybe I will test it.
It would be bs. Don't confuse a simple formula or set of rules with hard mathematical derivation. Something simplistic like writing rules versus deriving indicator then applying them to data sets should be more of a priority than thinking about how prices look versus where they've been and appear to be heading according to those proofs that are so much more complicated than people give them credit for. Being well capitalized hft helps, too!
wise decision....I added oldtime to my ignore list eons ago unfortunately I'm still able to see his/hers/thing rambling posts whenever he/she/it is quoted
Probably, I've heard many times that longer-term signals are more reliable. But somehow suck at swing trading, because ironically lack patience and discipline to wait for a proper setup, which may happen once in a few weeks/months per market.
Probably because context part is the most subjective part of trading. Maybe not subjective, but complex, consisting of many inputs to be processed simultaneously.