Seems like patterns work better on higher timeframe than lower?

Discussion in 'Technical Analysis' started by metatrader54, Nov 18, 2020.

  1. But why? More noise? I trade Forex, so it might be because not all volume is speculative and business need to exchange money whenever they want so will cause more "random" movement/noise?
     
  2. maxinger

    maxinger

    patterns work better on a particular (non-fixed) timeframe.
    Sometimes it is the bigger timeframe, sometimes smaller.

    It depends on how the market moves.
    The way it moves changes with time.

    professional writers and talkers will say use a bigger timeframe.
    This is where professional traders disagree.

    There is no ONE SIZE FIX ALL timeframe.
     
  3. Turveyd

    Turveyd

    They only seem to after the effect, uncertainty of trading means it all works out about the same, less spread.\ commission relatively ofcourse. Live SLs bigger, still no idea where to take profit, wait too !ong and its a loss don't wait long enough small profit relative to SL loss.

    Also less trades M1 10 to 30 setups a day, M5 2 to 4 that few hard to focus easy to miss them.

    If you need to make a wage most days then M1 is better or some volume derived method, investing straight to D1.
     
  4. tomorton

    tomorton

    I don't know that its ever been proven that patterns work better at higher time-frames. But the research and backtesting published has all been done at higher time-frames. But this isn't really the whole of the point - it isn't a question of working better or worse. I am pretty sure patterns in higher time-frames, even if they don't WORK better, can be WORKED better.
     
    They and cesfx like this.
  5. Of course, they do. It is because there is a lot of noise in shorter time frames in comparison to the higher ones. I usually use the 1-hour time frame.
     
  6. tomorton

    tomorton


    Do you see the 1-hour time-frame as a higher time-frame, in which chart patterns work well?

    Its not a time-frame I have tried - what do you find works best?
     
  7. Turveyd

    Turveyd

    But H1 and H4 have if index's have a lot of bars outside of the regular trading session, which mess up the being able to read what's going on.
     
  8. oraclewizard77

    oraclewizard77 Moderator

    1 min charts are noise. You can't trade noise. Look for at least a 5 min chart. Also, when you get longer moves due to volatility, remember to have bigger stops and targets.
     
  9. Handle123

    Handle123

    One minute allows for fine tuning of risk, but the key to trading one minute timeframes is knowing why price makes irregular one bar patterns. Often times traders believe it was to hit the stops of retail when a bar is three times normal bars or what is normal of last ten bars, but it can be a more distant trendline seen on five minute bars starting from day before.

    There are more false signals in one minute timeframes if you using TA, but if using charting rules and or patterns, AND you are well versed in how to draw proper trendlines/patterns, risk becomes far less/reward far greater on one minute as opposed to larger timeframes. But your skills dictate end results.

    One reason many fail at trading one minute is inability to see when not to take otherwise viable signals. Once should know what the average swing(Elliott's five waves), so say you trading ES and mean average of uptrend is 12 points, if price is at 11 points and you get a buys signal, you can either pass on signal or reduce a time management stop, trade either takes off in one bar or try to get out after one bar. Traders seldom know of reliable chart patterns at ends of trends and too often buying into a heads and shoulders near 10-12 points of uptrend in ES, and swing averages change due to volatility.
     
  10. wrbtrader

    wrbtrader

    Backtest and then compare your trading results...lower timeframe versus higher timeframe.

    Take the guess work (seems like) out of your trading.

    wrbtrader
     
    #10     Nov 19, 2020
    userque and They like this.