Dislikedcharli86, the 20 ema is the easiest target to enable you to build your performance confidence, once you hit 90% plus then go to 50 ema, etc. cpflegerIgnored
Make your own rules and stick to it.
1
charli86, the 20 ema is the easiest target to enable you to build your performance confidence, once you hit 90% plus then go to 50 ema, etc. cpfleger
50 is also a good option for M1!{quote} Thanks Abade for the info, I will try it
Inserted Video
If you sub to his channel you may catch some of his live sessions and trade along.
- #783
- Dec 28, 2022 11:33am Dec 28, 2022 11:33am
{quote} Hi charli86! Your entries and timing seems to be on-point, however I would have closed the trades manually at the 20 and 50 EMA touches as there were plenty of opportunities to get out with profits. In this case, adding more positions wouldn't improve the final outcome and may even increase DD/risk unnecessarily. EURCAD looks like a nice pair to trade BTW! Just wish the spread was a little lower to trade w/o commisions. Thanks for sharing my friend
Make your own rules and stick to it.
it seems that cfleger does not use stop losses
It's ok to exit trades manually with a small loss if you think that price is going nowhere. However, fixed hard stops will screw up your winning rate (badly).
If you are using cpfleger's approach you must pick the 20 EMA, and should be hitting it 90% of the time. if you get in trouble you use the 50 and 200 with cost averaging.
{quote} I think he's targeting the 100 ema on the M1 because M1 100ema = M5 20ema.
Today has been tough trading condtions for my self. Recovery mode was spent half this morning. However We recouped the losses. I could made more money holding on to trades instead breaking even on a batch. All trades would have been a loss had i used a hard stop loss. Hopefully tomorrow is easier {image}
and USDJPY:
I am glad you managed them well as always and came up with a very profitable day
I would have waited for the 200 EMA as the move happened in a well stablished trend (I would assume it was some sort of spike in the higher timeframe).
Thanks for sharing my friend!
That was my first day of assimilation of the system, tomorrow more and better {image}
cliffjaded / charli86, gents, can you teach an old dog a new trick about MAs. you both say 1M is 100ema and 5M is 20ema, may I ask how this is true? cpfleger
Here is M5 (EMA 20):
{quote} They're not exactly the same but a very close approximation. It's very common to use a longer MA on a lower TF to approximate a shorter MA on a higher TF especially if you do MTF analysis and you don't want to constantly flip timeframes. You can also set 20ema to be visible on M5 only, and 100ema to be visible on M1 only so that you flip between the timeframes, you only see 1 MA. Great when you want to drill down to get a clearer entry for price-action type strategies but we're not dealing with that here. But if you want an accurate M5 20...
{quote} They look almost the same, except that M1 has more noise (looking at EMA 100): {image} Here is M5 (EMA 20): {image}
Thick lime-pink line is M5 20ema and dotted aqua line is 100ema.
Leave the Gun, Take the Armani
. At least the Deceleration is more visible (could deceleration be used as filter for new entries?). 
- #800
- Edited 3:24pm Dec 28, 2022 3:06pm | Edited 3:24pm
Gents, So they are not the same then, so the 4 EMA Strategy was originally based on KoF Strategy of EMAs only - 9, 20, 50 and 200. All MAs have a mathematical formulae and not Timeframe (TF) related, be aware of this factoid. TF's are Program (software) capability and nothing to do with MA's. Forex Market has no Timeframe, TF's were invented to enable the human to view data in a decompressed view from the Programs default data set called Tick Data (MT4). MA's within this strategy are targets only per Instrument because each Instrument / Commodity...
The original strategy doesn't use the 100 EMA, but if we asume that the strategy works in every timeframe, then it's not a crazy idea to use it in a lower timeframe data to represent or come close to the 20 EMA of a higher timeframe data instead of switching between M1 and M5 charts constantly. I don't think there is a big difference between that and using an imaginary support/resistance zone between 50 and the 200 neither. Whether or not it's a useful (profitable) idea is up to empirical evidence (lots of trades and experience). I wouldn't use it myself, as I like to keep things simple and as close as the original concept as I can.
Best regards!