ichimoku (like with all other technical concepts) probably works quite well. It’s just a lack of understanding by most who look into it. for every method of forecasting price, there’s the right person to implement it. The longer I look at how most ppl use technical indicators etc I notice they’re lack of understanding of its true potential.
The first and biggest mistake people make is to think that you can build a good trading system just on one indicator. There is no magic indicator, each indicator has his weakness. Combining indicators should help to overcome the individual weaknesses of each indicator. Nowadays meteorologists are able to predict the weather for the next few days with high accuracy. They don't just watch at one "indication", they use the whole picture and analyze various things. Traders should do they same. When researchers tried to find a vaccine against Covid, they tried to make combinations of different substances, they never were looking for just one substance that would miraculously defeat Covid. The same applies to trading.
Hey now!! Let’s refer to indicators with gender-neutral pronouns, okay? Indicators aren’t only men!! Lmao I’m jk but seriously, the first and biggest mistake is traders thinking one indicator is the magic sauce? I’m not sure about this. I mean, everything exists.. I shouldn’t be surprised if there’s a dweeb out there thinking the RSI alone will profit his way into big bank bags. But I’m not sure if this is the first and biggest mistake. I’d say indicator overload is worse than just using one single indicator. I just think most indicators are greatly misunderstood, even by enthusiasts. This misunderstanding leads to false confirmations and bias’es develop. The mind is a tricky mechanism.
Ever thought about it that even you and me don't understand any indicator at fullest? How can you know that you understand them fully? How can you check that? You cannot as your judgement is limited by the limited knowledge that you have. If you can increase your knowledge, you will most probably adjust your opinion. I realized that when I discovered that for a certain indicator the rules can change depending on the behavior of another indicator (which has also variable rules depending on other indicators...). Before I understood that, I was sure that I knew everything about the indicator. I have now different rules for all my indicators depending on the behavior of other indicators. So rules are more or less self adapting to the total situation. They are not fix but variable. And their performance and reliability is much better then before.
Was luck ever a factor in making these discoveries? Or was it a result of persistent and focused problem-solving? The reason I'm asking is because what you describe is seemingly very complex and makes you wonder if arriving at the correct solution was simply a matter of elimination and manual tweaking or if there was some luck involved. I know this in my own studies as the rabbit hole seems endless when you start studying/testing/tweaking and knowing which parameters to tweak, which to include at all and which to eliminate.
Playing with semantics. When I say understand fully means understanding it’s mathematical formulae and it’s original intended use, as well as who created it (historicity). That’s what I was implying.
I created (calculated) all the common indicators in Excel in order to gain a better understanding of them. In essence - an indicator is merely math applied to historical prices and the indicator on your screens is the visualization of that math. Just like a price chart is a visualization of the underlying numbers. I'm sure there are indicators that are better than the ones available in the public domain.
From all the public indicators and their original rules, nothing works really good. If it would work good, many people would be very rich, and shortly after everybody would use that indicator making it unusable. Understanding the original rules is not rocket science, so I don't understand why people would not understand how to use the indicator.
It all started with the logic that I use. I applied that logic on formulas that I developped myself. From that moment on it was just question of finding the correct rules for a lot of different scenarios. So a very time consuming job and many failures (rules that finally did not work consistently) before finding the optimal logical rules. Millions of potential combinations had to be filtered out. Kept me busy for several years with slowly creating the complete trading system. Many "indicators" had to be combined, trying to find the balance between performance and not losing control over the amount of information that was produced by combining X "indicators in connecting with Y different rules. Too much info works contra productive and is impossible to be managed. Lots of questions: how many indicators are these indicators not based on the same data and logic (resulting in not adding any extra info as by definition they will give the same result) how to define the rules how to make different rules, and based on what priority of which rule in case of contradiction or confusion how to reduce the millions of combinations to keep only what makes sense logically
Hence my question with regards to 'luck' by stumbling upon the correct answers/parameters. I know from my own studies that the combinations are virtually endless... Good summary of what's required. Then you have those who test a few out of the box indicators for a day or two and know it all by then.