Yes; it does.
When you trade a multi-indicator system of this nature, it’s always going to be true that longer timeframes will give fewer trades but each of greater reliability (i.e. [B][U]if[/U][/B] it’s a sound system to start with, and that’s a very, very big “if”, then the win-rate will be higher, and the win-sizes will typically be of greater average magnitude).
This [U]doesn’t[/U] in itself [I]necessarily[/I] make doing so more profitable overall, of course (because of the reduced trading frequency: it can work out better gaining smaller amounts, even a lower proportion of the time, if the trading frequency is very significantly higher.)
I spent an enormous amount of time (quite a long time ago, now) methodically backtesting many different variations of the “Cowabunga system” and a huge number of indicator-variations of it, on a few of the “majors”. I know it may be almost sacreligious to mention it in this forum, but I was never convinced or able to demonstrate (and am still not) that it had a realistic edge [B]at all[/B], in [I][U]any[/U][/I] of its variations. The ways I found to make it profitable (though I don’t trade it) were [I]all[/I] based on incorporating price action techniques and principles into it. And that’s much harder to backtest, in practice.
The reason I don’t trade it, or anything similar to it, is that once one has learned to do that, one doesn’t actually need the indicators any more at all, and tends to be better off without them. Indirectly, the Cowabunga system was one of the underlying factors behind my abandoning indicators, and that decision itself was a big component in my eventually becoming profitable enough to make a living. So I ought to be very grateful to it, in a way. But that’s just my personal experience and perspective, and I know that many people here don’t share it. :8:
