Once calibrated, they provide signals that comprise a finite set of sequences that coincide with trend sequences, particularly the EOT. As singular go/no go triggers they are not as useful and probably is the primary reason for the negative reaction some people have to them. Incorrect calibration is another reason. MACD is quite useful.
I agree with you that putting dust bags on hair dryers is not optimal. I would not trust putting my long hair in a vaccuum cleaner to dry it either; it is a length issue for me since my hair is dusty grey. Women on the other hand, I monitor by my personal indicators. Personnally, Welles' indicator came along too late for me to follow your path. I am mostly a pre-indicator person age wise, so I did focus on just Dow and the P,V relation in the absence of indicators when I started. By inking a 6 months blank chart on vellum, I could make brown lines to, daily, pencil in HLC bar charts and volume bars. It was an osmosis thing and back plotting from the saved last page of the WSJ. How does a person reason through making money in a setting where an IBM engineering weekly salary is much less than trerading commissions. The edge of the P, V relation when charting was unknown was just inconceivable to brokers even. My broker (he was coattail trading me) personally caused T. J Watson and Tang of Tang Industries to have to publically state that they were not in negotiations. (I traded Tang from 4 to 22 by calling from IBM in Poughkeepsie over a matter of days using charts). Obviously the P, V relation is THE fundamental market foundation; it always has been. As time passed from the 50's there were many inventions that occurred for trading. Some were: computers, copiers, software, webs and networks. And lots of indicators. To make a lot of money, people adapt their ways. Gosh, it is fun to invent trading stuff. If I were to list 10 things I came up with to help myself make money, I would say that that they all came back to market data. That is a priori. I liked their utility, however. Before the PC it was realitively easy simply because everyone else was lasier than I. Early PC meant I could sort like crazy. I had a wall with 33 slots for pages. It was an add/delete world then. Stocks appeared to make money with and then they dissappeared for the exit time. That was all Boolean equations, etc. Many markets got invented too. Old people could do new markets easier than new people could. Leveraging comes and goes. Some markets demand us to trade them because of the continuing leverage. I went through years of "getting caught" by the SEC. Now they have decided I am not catchable since they have deleted me as a mistake they were making. I trade ahead of the market in multiple accounts (under 15 usually) so this concentration of being pushed shows up. Someone said paradigms and indicators are the same class. If you use leading indicators as a paradigm, then it is like a "clone" of insider trading. Only a small portion of the technical crowd are doing leading stuff. It mostly falls under the heading: "What wasn't that?" type stuff. Living in AZ makes for a hair drying problem. It is very difficult to keep hair wet here. Like cleaning vaccuums is difficult too; there isn't much to clean. I do not think it is possible to put too much emphasis on anything that makes money. for indicators, since the PC invention, you have to cahnge all the defaults. Not doing that makes the original default not very useful. Welles excepted.
It is difficult to argue with that statement. I guess that I am somewhat cynical in that I believe that the majority of all mathematically derived indicators are just products of some people's efforts to sell books, courses, seminars or videos. If some of them are actually useful, I would regard that as a happy coincidence. However, to the extent that you are profitable, and to the extent that you attribute your profitability to the use of indicators, my hat is off to you. Even so, I prefer my own approach. Different people choose different paths. That's what makes a market.
You are lost! You've heard the thin, high, reedy flute of the pied piper, but to your deluded ear it sounds like symphony. m
You are an embarassingly vain old bore. But you will always find a new group of idiots to feed your ego. m
Why so bitter, friend? The good in life will appear to you if you release the chokehold blocking the flow from the source. Cheers.
Hi Thunderdog, Just curious. Don't you or your computer apply any arithmetic on price (and possibly volume) data to arrive at your buy and sell decisions? Excluding insider information, what is left? Don't tell us you also use crystal balls and rabbit's feet like Maestro and nononsense?
One book published by McGraw- Hill authored by Steve Achelis is a good read. He wrote Technical Analysis from A to Z. His personal feelings come through quite remarkably. As CEO of EQUIS, we all know of his and his corps efforts to support trading (Metastock). It is too bad that there is no easy standard way for a person to go through the transition from starting to proficiency. The talent is all over the place and the capital available is huge (unlimited). I think the money factor is what is so dissabling. Money seems to be associated with living primarily and as a need that dominates. Getting a disconnect or something between trading capital and family living comes later than sooner and not having it stymies so many people at the beginning. If people had the trading down before they left high school, then the transition to wealth would be a lot easier. I really think that young people surpass their parents very soon in life. On the other hand there is not a money tradition that is handed from one generation to another usually. I am way OT here.