Yes, indeed. I don’t usually comment on that, myself, but it’s how I feel.
Inexperienced traders tend (for understandable but misguided reasons) to attribute predictive powers to indicators, and to imagine that the unreliability of some indicators can be compensated for by using them in conjunction with others which may “confirm” the “signals” to enter trades. :rolleyes:
Yes, indeed. The problem, though, is that these are typically aspiring (read “unsuccessful”) traders. (There are also a few rare exceptions to this!).
What people don’t appreciate (and I’m not blaming them: it’s a pretty difficult thing to appreciate!) is [I][U]the inverse correlation, in statistical/probabilistic terms, between degrees of freedom and robustness of methodology[/U][/I].
In simple terms, the more indicators a system is based on, the more backfitted and therefore the [B]less[/B] reliably predictive it’s actually likely to be. Long experience of discussing this in trading forums and elsewhere has made me increasingly aware that this really isn’t at all easy for people with little-to-no statistical background to understand.
On average, none.
Occasionally one (sometimes, if I’m just doing “fun, low-stake scalping” using the methods I’ve learned from Bob Volman’s books - this isn’t part of my “normal trading” - I’ll have a 20-period simple moving average there simply because Bob does this, so I’m used to seeing them both in his books and in his weekly trading summaries; also, very occasionally I’ll put an ATR on a chart, when I’m analysing targets and initial stop-loss placements, because I like to relate those to volatility; but none while I’m “trading seriously”.)