Of course I use the tf that I want and that suits me the most, just like Jaquille uses the 2 day timeframe.
Yes, nice work, TalonD. I prefer statistics to posturing any day.
The 2 day is a mix. You could run an analysis using your same data to determine if two day high/low has a better payout.
One time the two day high/low can be from the previous day. The next time, either the two day high or low can be from the previous day. And the next time the two day high/low can be from 2 days ago.
Yes, if you are saying I am using the high/low of the 24 hour or 1440 minute period that is commonly known as a “day”.
No, if you are saying that is the chart period I am looking at.
But that’s off the topic.
The topic is to show that “trend” is a myth.
Posts should show proof that “trend” exists or that “trend” does not exist.
ur telling me santa isnt real :(? then why are my cookies always gone in the morning and why do i wake up to presents every chistmas :(? LOL
trends do exist, could i tell you where one began and ended or where it will end? NOPE, if i could id b living on my private island right now. i never said you could use trend to profit, i said trends exist. personally i dont believe a trend begins or ends until after the fact. you wont realize the beginning until it has already occured. doesnt mean they dont exist. and if you can spot the beginings then even better, same goes for the ending of a trend
btw try the multi quote tool to the right of the “Quote” option.
If traders can’t agree on the trend then how can it exist?
If “trend” exists then why are the so called experts and “talking heads” wrong so many times?
…does price care about any of the above?
Does price care about begin & end, trend lines, retracements, amount of candles?
Does price care about allowances?
[B]Tonymand[/B] stated the obvious: [B][U]higher highs and lower lows[/U][/B]
What else is there?
Well not that off topic since you yourself use daily data, but you also say it’s timeframe independent.
A day is a day, wether on a chart, or a calendar, or an excel sheet, and what is commonly known as a ‘day’ is included within the concept of timeframe.
Why? Your logic is flawed - non sequitur. A preceding B does not imply A caused B.
You say “trends” exist. If that is the case then post a precise definition of trend.
You say “trend begins or ends until after the fact.” That is an interesting way of looking at “trend”. That begs the question, “Is the end of one trend the beginning of the next trend?” Which will only bring out the “trending or ranging” debate.
Perhaps we should be discussing “Crowd Theory” rather than the existence of “trend” or at least add it to the discussion.
A reversal from the higher highs and lower lows. 
Let me be precise… when I say “time frame independent” that means no matter what time frame you are looking at, the answer or result is the same. You can be looking at a monthly chart but the weekly open, today’s high and today’s low are still going to have the same value. That should clear that up so now we can move on.
From “Webster’s”:
Main Entry: 2trend
Function: noun
Date: circa 1777
1 : a line of general direction or movement <the trend of the coast turned toward the west>
2 a : a prevailing tendency or inclination : drift <current trends in education> b : a general movement : swing <the trend toward suburban living> c : a current style or preference : vogue <new fashion trends> d : a line of development : approach <new trends in cancer research>
3 : the general movement over time of a statistically detectable change; also : a statistical curve reflecting such a change
synonyms see tendency
So… From the dictionary, not only does trend mean a continuation, it can also mean a drift towards a new direction. We only have two directions. However, we have a variety of time frames.
Using the accepted definition, from the most respected source, the conclusion can be only this.
Because traders can’t agree on a direction doesn’t mean a directional move, aka “trend” doesn’t exist, it would more likely be the difference between the length of time they each believe that directional move will sustain itself.
Well, let’s get specific.
Price does two things.
[B]Higher highs & higher lows[/B]
[B]Lower highs & lower lows[/B]
visible as peaks & troughs on any TF you wish to choose.
Why in god’s name would you try to put that [U]label trend[/U] on it?
You havn’t proven anything or debunked anything, basically everything you said amounts too, “trend only exsists in the traders mind.” Which simply isn’t true.
There are very specific techniques for actually trading trends. Anyone can look at a chart and tell you if it is in a trend or not. The real tricks are getting a good entry and staying in for as much profit as possible.
Plenty of people in this thread have countered your presumption that trends don’t exsist with undeniable facts and logic, but you choose to ignore them, especially when you have no valid counter argument.
And No, I did not attack you personally I disagreed with you and pointed out how absolutely rediculous it is to say trends dont exsist. I also pointed out that IMO someone who would think like that, and actually believe it, has either failed at attempts to trend trade and or most likely never really traded for real in their life.
If you don’t want people to counter your mistaken beliefs and point out when you are wrong, then you shouldn’t post on a forum where banter is allowed.
For the ease of a conversation, it’s a commonly understood description of a directional move.
Why else would you call it anything else?
If you feel so inclined, here’s a few more options. Aim, bearing, bent, bias, course, direction, drift, inclination, leaning, movement, orientation, progression, run, swing, tendency, tenor.
While we’re at it, throw “flow” in there too.
I see, the geniuses opened another thread, recently. “Price can go up or down” must be spoken out of a genius, don’t? Plus who throws Mr. Heisenberg in, must be one, too.
Well, while Mr. Heisenberg contributed some strong formulas to the public, can’t see anything right here. Even chaos theory has more substance. I can’t see trend debunked anywhere. Well, I’m getting older and maybe blind, ha ha.
-
To say trend lies in the mind of the trader does not debunk anything. It just backs it up.
-
While I see Mr. Heisenberg softly rotating, I miss in general the first part of a new world breaking fundamental theory with sort of strong formulas: Defining, what a trend is.
-
That some systems don’t need time frames doesn’t mean time doesn’t exist. It is indeed very important, at which time a trade is entered or exited. Wouldn’t we agree with that would we?
So, I am looking forward that you guys define what a trend is, before the trial to debunking sets it.
Until then I will take a seat near Master Tang to watch what happens. 
Why? Because it’s an appropriate label. It’s a useful tool. And used by the right trader is EXTREMELY profitable. If price continously moves up strongly, it’s an up trend, if price continuously moves down strongly it’s a downtrend.
Choose to think trends are not real, and not recognize them and even not use the word trend, but you will pay for it when you trade.
You aren’t doing anything novel or new or debunking anything or being discovering some truth that other traders havn’t happened upon. Bascially what you and xtraction are doing is spouting nonsense and trying to sound intellectual and witty. Frankly, I think the both of you only argue this, simply to argue and take offense to real traders disagreeing with you and pointing out how foolish the whole premise is.
This nonsense that trend is a, “myth,” can only confuse and hurt new traders naive enough to believe it.
And noob traders aren’t losing because they believe in the, “myth,” of trends. You can call a cow a horse, but it’s still a cow and will do everything that a cow does despite whatever name you call it by or even if you choose to say a cow is a myth.
The definition is not precise because it is subject to interpretation. That proves my point that “trend exists only in the mind of the trader.”
True we only have two directions yet “trend” can’t be agreed upon.
Look at each definition:
-
is not precise and hence, is subjective. No starting point given.
-
is not precise and hence, is subjective. No starting time or point given.
-
is not precise and hence, is subjective. No starting time given.
The definition of “trend” is vague.
I wouldn’t.
Show proof that it is not true. If “trend” exist then there should be a precise definition that if different people apply it, they get the same results. If that can’t be done, then “trend” is a nebulous concept. That implies it exists only in the mind of the observer.
One can prove gravity exists. Prove “trend” exists.
I have countered everything with logic and shown the fallacy of the other posters’ logic.
I would be happy to revisit any logical proof that “trend” exists.
I am willing to entertain the notion that “trend” can only be identified AFTER THE FACT but that puts us into quantum theory which may leave many readers scratching their heads.