I love some of the responses on this thread.
"Yes simplicity is GREAT, which is why I only use <insert indicator name> and <insert indicator name> and <insert indicator name>, and maybe a little <insert indicator name> and only sometimes <insert indicator name>. But I reserve <insert indicator name> for really special situations, where I also use <insert indicator name> as confirmation. Nothing else, really. Keep it simple, ya know."
PS: I do not agree that it is simplicity or the lack of it that makes you wrong or right. You are thinking along the wrong lines. Success in predictions on an unknown time series function (which is really what we are doing) has nothing to do with simplicity itself. And if you think vegas is simple with his method or that price action identification is "simple", you have not understood them.
"Yes simplicity is GREAT, which is why I only use <insert indicator name> and <insert indicator name> and <insert indicator name>, and maybe a little <insert indicator name> and only sometimes <insert indicator name>. But I reserve <insert indicator name> for really special situations, where I also use <insert indicator name> as confirmation. Nothing else, really. Keep it simple, ya know."
PS: I do not agree that it is simplicity or the lack of it that makes you wrong or right. You are thinking along the wrong lines. Success in predictions on an unknown time series function (which is really what we are doing) has nothing to do with simplicity itself. And if you think vegas is simple with his method or that price action identification is "simple", you have not understood them.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea