And here you’ve highlighted one of the characteristics of moving averages calculated from the close: until you’ve actually [U]had[/U] a close, by definition they can “repaint”. So, strictly speaking, although there are of course times that you can guess with a very high chance of being right, you don’t actually [I][U]know[/U][/I] they’ve crossed until the candle’s closed.
I’m sorry to hear it, in a way (though I concede that there’ll doubtless be some educational value in doing so, and analysing [I]why[/I] it doesn’t and can’t work).
For a wide variety of reasons to do with how moving averages work and what they display, their crossovers are an extremely misguided parameter on which to base [I]trade entries[/I]. As countless independent, objective research studies have confirmed very repeatedly, they have absolutely [U]no[/U] predictive value of short-term price direction at all - and they can’t have. If you read the [U]whole[/U] thread [I]carefully[/I], and especially the posts in which longstanding, respected members give their comments about it, I think you’ll catch the flavour of why it’s basically nonsense. At least, I hope you will.
Learning from forums is very difficult, when you have no experience, because the time at which you have no experience (i.e. when you’re starting out) is exactly when it’s hardest to decide “by whom to be guided”, not knowing who the people are.
In the long run, if you like reading forums and getting ideas that way (rather than from reading established, accredited, peer-reviewed, authoritative textbooks published by mainstream, orthodox, respected publishers), learning “whom to trust” and “by whom to be guided” is probably [B][U]the single most important[/U][/B] skill-set to develop. But that isn’t always easy.
[I][U]The thing to be most aware of[/U][/I] is that in a field of endeavour in which something like 95%-98% of participants (depending on whose figures you believe) never actually achieve any success worth talking about, the “general consensus of opinion” is always far more likely to be misguided than realistic. You can see the logic, there, I should think? “Internet information” isn’t subject to any realistic quality control.
Sorry, I know it’s not what you wanted to hear at all. :8:
Unfortunately, though, it happens to be true.
And welcome to the forum.