Forget about RSI, MACD, candlestick patterns, etc, these are nonsense. Professional traders use advanced mathematical models: stochastic or deterministic models. You can have a look at how derivatives(like options instruments) are priced under market neutral idea and you will get a feeling about them.
Trust me, I have about 9 years years of experience in trading and like you, I went through that nonsense like RSI and other known technical analysis indicators but they couldn't provide me a real edge.
I mostly agree with this but in most types of trading (outside of crypto currency) fundamental information about the asset is much more important/valuable than mathematical models or technical analysis. With bitcoin, however, the market is extremely inefficient so both methods really aren't very reliable. The best way to trade bitcoin is to look at its fundamental value and decide whether or not you think it will rise or fall long term (like 10+ years out), and make decisions based on that. You can trade around your position using technical info, but your best bet is to hold long term if you are bullish.
Almost nobody is going to beat the crypto market over a long period of time by making frequent trades based on either technical or fundamental data.
No, it really depends. Outside crypto markets, for big quantitative hedge funds(Renaissance technologies for example), mathematical models are actually their thing, they don't rely too much on macro/fundamental data and let's not forget that in the last decade or so they managed to gain in average around 45%
after fees every year using mathematical models. They also had 3 different years with over +80% rate of return! This is huge, given that other funds are really happy with a +25% YoY. I don't know exactly how much risk did the Ren Tec took to get this returns, but given that they are managing billions of dollars, I would say that they know how to do proper risk management.
So no, neither one is more important than the other.
The funny thing is that outside crypto market I'm also a fundamental trader beside a systematic trader.
In my opinion, the so called "fundamental" data in crypto market is still at the beginning. Almost everything is centered around hype news and other exaggerated information. That's why I'm approaching the crypto market more from a systematic point of view(I'm programming my algorithms to take into account only time series prices).
Regarding
"With bitcoin, however, the market is extremely inefficient so both methods really aren't very reliable."actually we the traders want inefficient markets, don't we?
All the best.
Sorry but I don't believe this for a second. Please show a link with proof. The very best ETFs over the past 20 years average barely over 20% return, and those are the ones in tech... they still didn't really outperform the tech industry by all that much. I would be more inclined to believe that some smaller hedge funds in the tens or hundreds of millions may have gotten a 45% or 80% return a few years, but certainly not average over a long period of time. The best average return I've heard of for hedge funds is around 30%. I would be curious to know what the average deviation from that number is though, because that can affect overall return greatly. If you lose 50% and then gain 50%, your average return is 0% but you're overall change is -25% over those two years.
As someone who has done a lot of work with very complicated mathematical/AI models for price forecasting, I don't believe that they outperform people analyzing fundamental data on any time scale longer than a few days... and the most successful investors make money over months or years, not days.
And no, we don't want inefficient markets. We want markets that are relatively efficient but not 100%... enough that there will be disparities between price and value, but we can rely on them disappearing quickly.
Sure, here is the proof. I'm with you, I couldn't believe these figures either, what is your opinion on them?
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-21/how-renaissance-s-medallion-fund-became-finance-s-blackest-box
No no, but I didn't mentioned anything about ETF, I was talking only about hedge funds. Why are you trying to compare them? ETFs are used to gain exposure on certain markets, while hedge funds are a different beast, they are active players.
"...I don't believe that they outperform people analyzing fundamental data on any time scale longer than a few days... and the most successful inve..."I agree with you, using quantitative methods to do long term predictions is... a little bit tricky.
But we are not forced to do long term prediction. This is why when using quant models, the prediction should be made on shorter time frames and taking advantage of smaller market movements. The biggest great side effect of this would be an increased Sharpe ratio(at the expense of higher trading cost).
And regarding inefficient markets: I stick to my view. The more the price is above/below the
right price, the more trading opportunities.
The thing is that there is no correct answer, some can make money using fundamentals, others using systematic algos while others use both. So getting back to your initial claim
"fundamental information about the asset is much more important/valuable than mathematical models" is wrong because it depends on who you ask: a systematic or a fundamental/value trader? As I showed you above, the mathematical models can generate huge profits.