144 ema method

ahahahahahhahahahaha, you never posted a live trade moron, you make shit, dreamer

[quote=ScalaFX;ha152922te} ahahahahahhahahahaha, you never posted a live trade moron, you make shit, dreamer[/quote]


hahahahahahaha

144 x 77 ema and 77 ema method | Forex Factory

I already posted an answer about using moving averages. You can use any moving average, the result will always be the same: If you catch the bounce and the currency cross has strength, you will earn. If not, you lose because of the lateral movement or sudden reversals. It is useless to continually invent new crossings and moving average measures. Also, you cannot resist a long time at the computer waiting for the right opportunity. Sooner or later, traders collapse. (Third post).

This seems to be exactly right.

I think there's no such thing as a robust MA crossover method, and there can't really be, by definition. This seems to be what the independent, objective published research on the subject says, too.

Of course, any simple system based on entries produced by MA crossovers (of each other, or by the price) can appear to "work" for a timeframe-dependent period. And of course if you test enough of them, your chances of finding one of those approaches 100%, but it will still be curve-fitted, not robust.

I think the underlying cause of the persistence of this stuff, in forex forums and with Youtube/website marketers, and so on, is a widespread but horribly misguided, inaccurate, misleading and ill-informed perspective, or belief, that the trade entry-method is the most significant component of a trading system.

It’s easy to understand why many people hope so much that that’s true that quite a lot of them end up actually believing it.

And it’s easy to see how and why the industry continually reinforces the so-deeply-mistaken belief that "if you get the entries 'right', everything else will somehow, magically, work out ok and you‘ll be trading profitably."

It’s even possible to invent hundreds of trading "systems" on the basis of this mistaken belief, without ever learning or understanding why none of them can ever be robust (i.e. usable).

Agree whit you but on the opposite side of your argument, we can't say any random entry method reliying only on money management will survive long enough uness you have deep pokets.

I think you must have decent entries and decent risk control and good money management to survive in this business.

Yes, I agree.

I'm not saying entries are worthless. I’m just saying that they’re one part (and IMHO not the most important one at all). Some people think they're the only part!

What's, in your opinion, the most important part of trading?
If you have a system with 10% win rate and risk:reward of 1:2 will you be able to still make a living from it?

In my opinion the most important thing about trading is your psychology, also a 10% winrate with a 1:2 is not going to be able to make enough for you to live on your own at minimum a win rate of 50 % for your average day trader.

There are so many parts that I don't quite know! But I think a very important part is having enough understanding of math/stats to understand how to prove, for yourself, with a high degree of confidence, whether or not your trading method has a genuine, robust edge (positive expectation) over the market.

Without that, I think you have nothing, really.



No, of course not. And neither will anyone else. (No matter how good their "psychology" is!?)

Eh... let's get to the point. I've written about it before in other forums that no longer exist - only forexfactory remain . Indicators are programs that contain a mathematical model that draws some patterns on the chart, based on price history - past and current. They don't predict the future. People hope that the signals from popular indicators are profitable because they expect many other traders around the world to trade with them and thus cause the price to move in the desired direction. But the reality is sad.... I'll write again someday, when the muse comes to me .