What is a trend? - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
It's an associative and intuitive understanding. It's like looking at it and it all makes sense. But imagine (I'm not a programmer, I don't know how to phrase it properly) that you are writing to an owl, what would you say to it? In formal language. I think the first thing would be to link it to a TF. I.e., the definition can already indicate that the trend is (tra-ta-ta) on a particular TF.
When they will be able to distinguish trend from flat, then the grail will be written....
From which it follows that the trend can only be somehow determined a posteriori, and quite subjectively.
Let's say we've passed the local max, which is higher, and we're going down. Are we still in a trend or not?
I know that there is such a phenomenon amongst NEOs as the wave level (WL). It's much deeper than the primitive TF, and, waves (trends) are classified at an approximate level (let's say they say, "Trending at the M15 level... although no, it's clearly smaller here, judging by the indications, it's still M10 or M8")
Alternatively, but with a claim to formality, the famous trader Stanislav "Hello, dear subscriber! Chuvashov. He defined a trend as a ratio of fractals (already related to the TF). I.e., those notorious "local tops and lows" - will show us fractals. If the "next low" is higher than the previous one but lower than the previous one, meanwhile the next top is higher than the previous one, it is NOT a trend yet, it is still a flat. A trend is when the new trough (fractal down) is higher(!) than the previous top (fractal up). That is, it is essentially a sharp spike, an impulse. And that one defined it as the start of a trend.
When they can distinguish trend from flat, then the grail will be written....
:DDD))))
The most primitive, but still unrevealed (vaguely formal or something), is the ratio of mash-ups. This is how everyone defined themselves at the beginning of the journey, I think. Fast above slow - up trend and vice versa. Price above the slow - trending up and vice versa.
But, these two methods (and similar ones) ignore the flat trend phenomenon (it is kind of present, but it is kind of absent).Or a ZigZag. Also the simplest way. Again, it is a little bit blurred.
When they are able to distinguish trend from flat, then the grail will be written....
The beginning of an intraday trend can be more or less identified, but how do you predict the direction?
The start of an intraday trend can be more or less determined, but how do you predict the direction?
Clearly. Here, the candles fall one by one and sort of trend down. But, in formal language, so that there are no questions - how do you determine the beginning of the trend?
UPD
As one more option, Nikolsky has a rather formal approach in TS Pathfinder: flat is a reverse crossover without opening. A trend is a consolidation and opening. Voila! And no questions asked. Only you get lost on the chart with these pairs of flails.
You can come up with a shitload of definitions for a trend.
Say, if the current price is higher than the moving price by at least ATR (of the same period) - then the trend is up. Mirrored downwards. If the price is no more away from the moving average than ATR, then it is flat.
You can come up with a shitload of definitions of a trend.
Say, if the current price is higher than the moving price by at least ATR (of the same period) - then the trend is up. Mirrored downwards. If the price is no more away from the moving average than ATR, then it is flat.
And what is the true one? D)
Otherwise, it turns out that everyone is sort of correct.
I think it is possible to come to an exhaustive one, after which the others will be "stumps" from the main one
I remember when people used to go door to door with magazines and brochures, inviting everyone to their Sunday services.
and he'd come up and say, "Do you believe in the trend?" And I used to say, "Have you seen it with your own eyes, felt it? I haven't."
What is the real one? D)
Otherwise, it turns out that everyone is kind of right.
I think you can come to an exhaustive one, after which the others will be "stumps" from the main one
Think creatively about your question. Think about what is a trend and what is a wave? The question will fall away. I'm sure it will.