![]() ![]() So to me I would expect to see bulls and bears fight it out to the death and it could get ugly real quick. ![]() ![]() I dont see a really strong S/R level but there is some minor areas hanging out not to far away. This means volatility is going to be high for market open later on today. This can be of very significant as you now have a lot of traders eyeing this level for various reasons. So for instance on the EUR/USD daily chart you have friday closed right on both the 50 and 200 ema. I personally dont believe the work for accurate S/R level but people do use them and some profitably non the less. With that being said the 50 and 200 ema can be of great benefit to keep an eye on as lots of traders do use them for trend direction and dynamic S/R. Problem with a 50 and 200 ema cross is those lag pretty far behind price so by waiting for a cross in an area of S/R I would be skeptical as they lag so far being by the time the cross happens the move has already played out and you missed the buss. Can a strategy work involving a MA cross? Sure I guess if price is in an area of S/R or other factors to back it. Some people spend almost lifetimes trying to do this, but they’re not making a living (apart from maybe by selling courses and software!), and the reality - to a skepchick like me - is that they’d actually be better off spending their time trying to prove Goldbach’s conjecture (and there’d be more money in that, too!).įrom my experience moving average crossover strategies are typically not worth your time as they are crap. The great mistake to avoid, in my opinion, is to adopt a philosophy of “ok, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t, so what we need is to use it in conjunction with other indicators to ‘confirm’ its signals and try to exclude a significant proportion of the times it doesn’t work”. They’re good and valid and objective reasons, and in the long run (which is all that matters, in this game) they’re going to apply to you and to me just like they apply to everyone else. Both lose money in the long run, and there are, of course, reasons for that. In practice, 50/200 is quite a “long, slow” crossover to be looking at, so it takes longer to realise that that’s so than would be the case if you looked at a 5/20 crossover instead. Backtesting over 10-15 years’ data typically tells a very different story. But markets can sometimes trend for quite a long time, so it’s easy to get the impression that it “works”. Just my perspective: it’s reliable for the 15-20% of the time that the market is trending (and that’s the 15-20% of the time that you don’t need it anyway, because you can see that without indicators), and unreliable/whipsawish the other 80-85% of the time. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |