📊 매매할 때 어떤 근거를 가장 신뢰하시나요?

Price action for entries/exits, indicators for confluence only. Fundamentals don't matter intraday—I'm out before they do. Context shifts too fast for lagging indicators to be primary signals.

I use all three. They're all useful. Picking just one is like going to build a house and only bringing a hammer. You need the entire tool box to build a good house.

Price action as learned from Al Brooks, I watch price at 9, 20 and 50 EMAs and at VWAP/AVWAP.

I’ve realised that choosing just one is a bit of a trap. Every method has blind spots like indicators lag, price action can be subjective, and fundamentals move slow. My approach now is to treat them as different data layers. I’m distilling the 'pros' of each into a unified logic like **Fundamentals** give me the directional bias, **Price Action** identifies the entry zone, and **Indicators** provide the objective mathematical confirmation.When you filter the strengths of all three, you stop 'guessing' and start trading a high probability system where the confluence does the heavy lifting.

price action mostly. indicators always lag and by the time they confirm something the move is halfway done. i use volume to confirm and thats about it. fundamentals i check for context like if theres fed news or earnings but i dont trade off them directly. kept it simple and stopped overthinking which indicator combo is best

rely mainly on price action, with a few indicators as confirmation, not decision-makers. Indicators lag, fundamentals move too slow for active trading. Price tells you where real money is stepping in. VWAP, levels, and volume just help frame risk.

Only from real orders from other traders, scalping on 1m, graphic patterns and indicators have long since stopped working

Price action for entries/exits, indicators for confluence only. Fundamentals don't matter intraday—I'm out before they do. Context shifts too fast for lagging indicators to be primary signals.