If that would be the case “trend” followers would be able to trade without charts. They can’t.
PRICE FOLLOWERS can trade without charts.
All what PRICE FOLLOWERS require is OHLC.
And that’s price.
They don’t need any accessories.
The “trend” followers are spending their time trying to define something which really doesn’t exist except in their own minds.
It’s worse.
The “trend” followers trying to break it up so they can file it away in their heads. Institunilized education works like that. They can’t help themselves.
On the other hand, some of us look at precisely defined levels (open, high, low), look at where price is relative to those levels and trade accordingly. We do not feel the need to give names or labels to that which only exists in our minds.
Because that’s all what there is.
Open & High & Low
Price goes up.
Price goes down.
Regardless of TF.
That’s it!
LOL just came across this thread, what fun! I’ve still to work out the purpose / point of it, or perhaps there is none really? Just bored and decided to give your brain a workout?
Either way, I’m on the side of the “trends exist” camp. I’ve seen some of your chart posts and I see you have problems deciding which trendlines are relevant, and which aren’t, which is fine as i had the same problems myself for a long time. However if you practice enough then you should get better. There is a way to decide on the “correct” trendlines - correct meaning ones you can use as the basis of a succesful trading system. This is demo’d over again in the Trade Idea thread in the Trading Systems forum, and also an old thread called ABCD over on FF, which uses the “trend” as the base of a very good system.
Stating there is no reason / logic (that you can fathom) behind trends, therefore they just can’t exist is a bit ridiculous. Price is controlled by humans (people buying and selling like you said), rather than just “existing” and therefore is subject to some sort of control and structure, otherwise it would be 100% random and we really wouldn’t stand a chance (and neither would the banks etc more to the point, as they tried to fill their huge, staged orders) - but that isn’t actually the case, right? So as the human-mind likes patterns / structure etc, and the markets are a collection of human minds, why is the concept of patterns / structure (such as a trend, or a channel) in the market ridiculous? End of the day, the concept of trends has been around in “trader-land” for ever, and the concept repeatably proves itself as the basis for sound trading (if you can see it), and I guess this is because enough people use them. But you know what, I don’t really know why, in the same way as I don’t know the meaning of life - and I don’t really care either. All I care about is that I can draw trendlines across the timeframes, which give me the basis of a sound trading system, and which make me money. Much like a lot of others here who also can see the “trend” and use it succesfully - keep looking and maybe one day it could be you!!
Wow, that was a bit of a brain workout, don’t know if I could manage another one of those this week!
Shandy, may I gently suggest you reread what I have posted? And please do not misquote me.
I have no “problems deciding which trendlines are relevant, and which aren’t”. I don’t use trendlines.
I never stated “there is no reason / logic (that you can fathom) behind trend”.
“why is the concept of patterns / structure (such as a trend, or a channel) in the market ridiculous?”. Did I use the word [I]ridiculous[/I]?
From post #1:
The purpose of this thread is to show that TREND is a concept that only exists in the mind of the trader and therefore a MYTH.
I am more than happy to discuss and debate THIS TOPIC IN THIS THREAD. But please, focus on the topic and do not misquote or paraphrase my words. People with opinions contrary to mine are more than welcome to post in this thread so long as their posts are civilized and do not attack others personally.
If you are posting to present, to teach or to learn, that is fine. If you are here to heckle, go away.
Well, I opened by stating I could see no point or purpose in this thread - and you’ve just proved my own point! What is the crux of your problem sir - what are you asking us to help with? I couldn’t be bothered reading through all your waffle, word-by-word so took what I could from a skim-read, and from looking at your charts (the ones with all the trendlines mainly) and thought the way I phrased the above kind of summed things up - I wasn’t actually quoting you (hence no use of “” anywhere). Perhaps not, so please tell me where I went wrong? If you don’t think the concept of trends etc are ridiculous, what word would you substitute which would best sum up your thought on these sort of things?
On the point of you not using trendlines, why have you posted numerous charts with lines all over them? Why do you actually care if you don’t use them?
One could almost say that was the point of a manually drawn trend line couldn’t they?
Does price care if you draw a line there?
No.
Does price know you drew a line there?
No.
Does price respect the line you drew there?
No.
Does price care if you made an entry based on what that line does?
No.
Can price change and suddenly reverse?
Yes.
As you so succinctly put it, a chart is made up of plotted indications of where price was at a given time in the past, within in a given time frame. Price moves merrily along it’s way not caring whether you draw a line under it or not. Sometimes it goes up for an extended period of time, sometimes it goes down for an extended period.
And for the ease of communication, that continued action has been given a one word descriptive term that has a defined meaning, and is recognizable by all who speak fluent english:
[B]TREND[/B]
Do you have to call a move by that word?
No.
Does price care if you call those extended moves that word?
No.
Demarcation of where price has been, with a horizontal, vertical, or angled line makes no difference.
It just helps define key areas of price action for all of us, no matter the methods.
And often, whether those lines are horizontal, or angled the crossings thereof trigger entries, or exits.
Arguing over preferred nomenclature of price action is semantics.
That is an interesting observation / analysis / conclusion.
Trading has some “craft like” qualities. Profitable traders would exhibit “craft like” behavior as they traded such as doing the same things, the same way over and over. The main difference is that the outcome of any particular trade can not be guaranteed like the outcome of baking a cake, or making a pair of shoes.
Wow, just come across this post - and you know what, this is exactly how I would have defined the “trend”. So that makes two of us. Amazing, what’s the chances of that?? And just suppose there were a bunch of others who also saw it this way…where would we be? Where could it lead? One possibility is the continuation of that “trend”…until it breaks, just like MG said. And then we’d all look for the next “trend”. Ad infinitum.
xtraction wasn’t banned for his methods. If that was the case, why would his threads remain open? Even the ones openly criticizing the staff?
And I’m fairly sure there are no tar and feather parties in the works from anything posted in this thread either.
Short of the title to it, there’s really nothing terribly controversial in this tail chase.
For the most part, everyone has minded their manners.
The problem lies in the less than precise definition of the word “trend”. “Extended period” and “continued action” are general, almost borderline nebulous, terms that are subject to interpretation and debate.
Didn’t you already agree that “trend” is conceptual and only exists in the mind of the trader? Or am I confusing you with someone else?
Do you know the reason xtraction was banned? It takes 2 people to argue and fight. If one gets banned so should the other. That is why I refuse to be snookered into a fight. I know the decked is stacked. The rules are not applied equally to all. If that were the case, this thread would not exist and there would be at least one less FX-Men Honorary Members posting.
Your first sentence is just confusing, but perhaps that is just because you are intellectually superior to me therefore I will concentrate on the second, which I can understand.
The point you perhaps need to consider is that the “trend” exists in the mind of traders. The important bit being the “s” at the end. If it is /was as you state, then you may have a point, but putting it “my” way (and which we proved in my last post) means the trend becomes more than a concept, and turns into something that actually exists, in a useable form. Time and time again there is a trend that is obviously obvious, and therefore real enough for people to make money from, which they do. And that’s all that matters, isn’t it?
One last post here, and I will leave you to your own devices on this anti topic.
How is the word “trend” by definition less than precise?
That’s the point of it.
It [B]IS[/B] a generalization.
Let’s use your method for instance.
You use two lines. One on a chosen high, one on a chosen low.
You then wait until price crosses in a direction.
Which way? Not an issue. You are looking for a move in price that not only crosses one of those lines, you then want a continued action, OR directional move, OR extended period, OR [B]TREND[/B], in that direction long enough for you to make a profit.
Is it in your head when price crosses?
No.
Was it mythical?
No.
It’s not subjective, it’s a generalized description of a factual occurrence.
Can provide another example of how a concept can turn into something that actually exists in a useable form? It would be better if it is not a trading example.
You know, even you won’t trade without time frames. If you look at it or not doesn’t matter. The time frames are still there. They don’t care about you.
I tell you what: In my business I hire people based on outcome. If anybody is good in coding, he might get hired. If it needs him to read a book or two to get to this point or if he drives with a roller coaster through the company or prays to Buddha to reach his destination, I don’t care.
Should he start preaching and make others confused that his method is the only allowed path, he get fired.
You sound like a 200 years old grandfather with a beard as long as my investment history and as attractive gray as the Jacket of Mr. Achmadinejad or how they call him.
Somebody started yelling, others take trend trading as religion. I can only identify one religious group here and those are who put their knowledge as superior above others and trying to debunk others. At least you only debunk yourself. Don’t know if you recognized this, lately.
I am from Europe and there is a phrase in my native language. I’ll try to translate that: [B]Arrogance comes short before falling down![/B]
Think about it: If people trade with trend and make profit, what problems do you guys have with it? Do you have problems they make more profit not your way or what? People are different and will ever be (hopefully). Every life which exist is precious. Even you, albeit throwing a lot of dogmatism in here. Why don’t you just keep with the good work?