Now you are changing the analogy to defend your position. We are talking about the same tool in different hands. Was easy to understand. Now you are comparing a wooden hammer to a metal hammer. Not the same tool. Likewise we cannot compare a MA crossover indicator to a stochastics indicator to support the point being made that it is not the indicator but the person. Sure we could say a 47-period moving average indicators sucks balls compared to a 9- or-20 period for intraday trading and it is a crappy indicator, but the question really is whether the MA is a good indicator for you as a trader. The period used is the next level but first is a MA a good indicator? Depends if you can use it to make money. Most people want a book to tell them: Put a 9 and 20 period MA on your 5 min chart of ES and go long when X, Y and Z happen and go short when A, B, and C happen and that is your system. Cookie cutter systems are bullshit and is misused to say the indicators are worthless. No, blindly following indicators in a fantasy system is worthless, the indicators are just giving you information and someone dumbed it down to sell a book.
Sorry..I read this twice and still did not understand what you are trying to say. I am not arguing against you, just making a general point.
There is no edge in being able predict direction. The only edge a trader has is the ability to prudently manage trades.
This is why most traders who blow up accounts will tell you that they picked direction well but hung on or overextended themselves and also took profits too early.
Rubbish. You can't manage your way to "edge". It doesn't matter what your management strategy is, if there is no edge to begin with, then this is NO edge. Period.
Are you smoking something? How on earth do you get a +expectancy without proper management? How do you think you get the edge in the first place?Discipline and management first and profits will follow.
I was just trying to say that I listen to what the market tells me without the need for a translator.
In my journey, indicators were very helpful training wheels to support my understanding of market cycles. I never thought a day would come where I preferred not to have some tried, trusty and true by my side. As I learned, observed and understood the results of my actions, using a variety of indicators revealed several aha's. Aha's are required to progress in this field and can only come from our own work. Otherwise the trap of truisms can impede one's development. To know the why of an asserted principal, from whom and testing it goes farther in developing one's discernment than blindly accepting the discoveries someone else had made. Throrough and detailed market observation within one's chosen best-fit synthesis of personality and methodology is the game changer - at least it was for me. Discovering and discerning truth encapsulated in all it's facades and forms is a worthy pursuit but it does come with a cost. We rarely understand what this cost is upfront. The cost is fairly valued until it isn't. Things are until they are not. Things are not until they are. Am I observing change or continuation in this moment? What happened before this moment? What do I anticipate appearing in the next moment? Exploring the relationship between price and volume can reveal much. Understanding the relationship makes the statement "volume is the leading indicator of price" true. The statement can also be seen as false. There's a world of thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, emotions, actions and results between the two. Black and white? true. Shades of gray? also true. Both exist, both are similar and both are distinct. But how does one explain color to one who is color-blind? Is being color blind self-chosen? Is it possible to learn to see color? Why do folks argue for their victimizations and limitations? The developing concept of neuroplasticity has much to offer here. Is it possible to teach someone balance after the nerves of their inner ear have been destroyed rendering their life to a perpetual state of being dizzy, unbalanced and unable to stand? However far-fetched, the above statement is true. Although it appears that way, Truth is not the independent variable. In my aha's, Context occupies that space. Truth is dependent on context. Context changes what is true.
No need to make accusations just because I have challenged your belief system. -I am not saying you don't need to deploy good management techniques, I am am saying that your "edge" can't come from money management once you have entered a trade. -If you have no "edge" before when you enter, then you are just making "random" entries -If the entry is random, then the outcome is also random. No management approach can change that, so no money management approach alone can make you profitable, especially after slippage/ comms. -Edge alone can not come from prudently managing trades. This isn't my onion. Ask anyone with a background in Statistics.
Typically people will spend a couple years or even 3-5 years applying all those some 300-500 indicators available to their charts, hoping something work like a magic. The truth is market dynamics is so complex that not one single indicator can fully catch the accuracy of the price movement.