What is a trend? - page 16
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
Under certain conditions, yes.
If there were no trends at all, there would be no word trend.)
Some people associate the word trend with the word drain.
To determine when a trend is over, it is enough to draw trend lines.
I know it's too late, but agree it's reliable.
Exactly! If there were no god, devils, ghosts, sorcerers, woodsmen, vampires - there would be no such words in common use!
:-)
Ohhh...
What a lot of vague ideas. You should get them together and formulate formal criteria/rules/instructions to determine the strict point of trend start, its end and transition of the directed trend phase into a flat.
So far, the only formal clue is a binding to a scale (a wave level, if we speak for neo-wavers, and fractals, if we speak for conventional ones).
I.e., coming from the obvious one, namely - a flat is a trend on the mlTF, and a trend is a flat on the stTF (not always, except for impulses from some Brexits), in the sense that everyone can clearly see it (associative perception), but cannot formalize (algorithmize), we can determine whether a trend belongs to a strictly defined TF.
Then, the definition of the trend will include the TF: the trend is a directed, non-horizontal movement of the price in a certain TF, in which the reversal movement in the opposite direction does not exceed (tra-ta-ta)... what next? Size? Does it not break the previous fractal? What do you think
Of course, first of all, we have to determine in which price and time range the trend will be determined. The rest is a matter of technique (algorithm).
The trend is the same on the tick chart or on D1 or W1.
Of course, first of all, we have to determine in which price and time range the trend will be determined. The rest is a matter of technique (algorithm).
The trend properties are the same whether on a tick chart or on D1 or W1.
All this reminds of arguments about the number of angels that can fit on the tip of a needle...
The three-wave market model has a rather good definition of a trend - it is an ABC cycle, where ABC is formally defined and when a correction wave occurs that is "bigger in size" than wave B in the ABC cycle of a certain TF, then we can safely declare that a correction wave to the whole ABC trend (cycle) has occurred, which means that there is a trend in the current TF.
I.e., the trend in this bell is as follows:
A trend is a movement, the point of beginning of which is the base of wave A, and the point of reversal or flat is the peak of wave C. At which: the ABC cycle is defined (i.e., we answer the question - what is it anyway) as an initial directional movement in a certain TF, then a correction of sufficient size to it, not breaking through the base of A, then again directed movement towards the beginning with breaking through the peak of A. From this point we have a trend (aka ABC) in a certain TF. By "sufficient correction" is meant a backward crossover of the bars, either by AO (the parameters are secondary) or else as
If there is a trend reversal as you understand it, then your trend is infinite to the right. I.e., all movement is a trend changing direction.
Does anything confuse you?
If my rule of thumb is that the trend is changing direction, then I stick with it.
1 Up trend.
2 A sideways trend. I can define this trend as a flat or trend is not pronounced. It depends on the situation.
3 Down trend.
I have not seen any other variants for many years.
But the correction may be horizontal, it does not necessarily have to be a pronounced pullback.
If I have a rule that a trend changes direction, then I stick to it.
1 Trend upwards.
2 A sideways trend. I can define this trend as a flat or trend is not pronounced. It depends on the situation.
3 Down trend.
I have not seen any other variants for many years.
But the correction may be horizontal, it does not necessarily have to be a pronounced pullback.
So it is not confusing. OK.
The three-wave market model has a rather good definition of a trend - it is an ABC cycle, where ABC is formally defined, and when a correction wave occurs that is "bigger in its dimensions" than wave B in the ABC cycle of a certain TF, then we can safely declare that a correction wave has occurred for the entire ABC trend (cycle) and, therefore, a trend is present in the current TF.
I.e., the trend in this bell
A trend is a movement, the point of beginning of which is the base of wave A, and the point of reversal or flat is the peak of wave C, when: the ABC cycle is defined as an initial directional movement in a certain TF, then a correction of sufficient size, not breaking through the base of A, then another directional movement towards the beginning with breaking through the peak of A. Since then, we have a trend (aka ABC) in a certain TF. By "sufficient correction" we mean a backward crossover of the flaps (parameters are secondary).
All basically correct, except when a correction wave repeats after a correction wave, etc.
Such profound discussions usually do nothing to understand the problem.
The old tried-and-true way: post any chart of any pair, and use it to show your vision of whether or not there is a trend... and then comment specifically and clearly.
It will be more useful!
This is like arguing about how many angels can fit on the tip of a needle...
I'm not arguing with anyone, I'm expressing my opinion. I'd rather you talk about what's bothering you than what's bothering you. You'll be more useful.
Such profound discussions usually do nothing to understand the problem.
The old tried-and-true way: post any chart of any pair, and use it to show your vision of whether or not there is a trend... and then comment concretely and visually.
It will be more useful!
(Thoughts are somewhat similar))