Do You Actually Use RSI & MACD, or Are They Overrated?

Samantha Jones

Samantha Jones

Active member
I’ve been experimenting with some basic TA strategies, particularly using RSI and MACD. Sometimes they work like a charm, other times it feels like they lag behind price action.
Curious how others use them.

  • Do you rely on RSI divergence for entries?
  • Do you find MACD crossovers helpful on higher timeframes?
  • Or have you moved on to more custom indicators?

Would love to know what’s actually working for you in this market. Let’s trade some notes.
 
RSI and MACD are solid, but they’re just pieces of the puzzle. RSI divergence works best with confluence—like support zones or volume spikes. MACD crossovers? More reliable on daily+ timeframes. But smart money isn’t using basic indicators alone—liquidity zones, order flow, and algo-driven signals are the real edge now.
 
RSI and MACD are useful, but they lag—making them more effective when paired with volume, trendlines, and market structure. RSI divergence can signal reversals, but confirmation is key. MACD crossovers work better on higher timeframes with momentum confirmation. Advanced traders incorporate order flow and liquidity data for precision entries.
 
RSI and MACD? Solid for beginners, but in this algo-driven market, they’re borderline obsolete if used alone. Smart money isn't trading off basic indicators—they’re hunting liquidity and exploiting retail traps. If you're still relying on lagging signals, you might just be exit liquidity. Time to level up your strategy.
 
Great to see you diving into TA! RSI divergence can be a solid entry signal, especially when combined with support/resistance zones. I’ve found hidden divergences even more reliable for catching trend continuations. As for MACD, crossovers alone can lag, but using the histogram for momentum shifts on higher timeframes (4H, daily) adds some edge.


Lately, I’ve been incorporating volume analysis and EMAs to filter out false signals. Also, some traders swear by custom oscillators like WaveTrend or Wolfe Waves for precision entries. What’s been your best setup so far.
 
RSI divergence can be a solid signal, especially when combined with key support/resistance levels. I’ve found it works best on higher timeframes 4H and above to filter out noise. As for MACD, crossovers alone can be laggy, but using them alongside volume or price structure can improve accuracy. Lately, I’ve been experimenting with custom indicators like EMA clouds and VWAP for confirmation. Keep testing what works for you markets evolve, and so should our strategies!
 
RSI and MACD are solid tools, but their effectiveness really depends on the broader market trend. In strong uptrends, RSI overbought signals can be misleading, and in downtrends, oversold levels can stay low for a while. I’ve found RSI divergence useful, but only when it aligns with key support/resistance levels. MACD crossovers work better on higher timeframes , but I wouldn’t rely on them alone pairing with volume analysis and trend confirmation helps avoid false signals. Have you tried combining them with EMAs or order flow data Curious to hear what’s been working for you!
 
I’ve been diving into RSI and MACD too, and I totally agree—sometimes they align perfectly with price action, other times, not so much. For me, RSI divergence has been helpful for spotting potential reversals, especially on lower timeframes, but I do keep in mind that it can lag during strong trends.


I’m still a fan of MACD crossovers, especially on higher timeframes like 4H or daily charts. The crossovers help me confirm momentum shifts, but I’ll often combine them with support/resistance levels for extra confidence.


I’ve also started experimenting with a few custom indicators for more accuracy, like combining RSI with moving averages to filter out noise. Would love to hear if anyone else is finding success with similar strategies! Let's keep sharing tips—always good to learn what’s working for others in this market.
 
RSI and MACD are solid tools, but they do have their limitations, especially in choppy or highly volatile markets. RSI divergence can be a strong signal, but it’s best used in confluence with trend structure and support/resistance levels rather than in isolation. MACD crossovers tend to be more reliable on higher timeframes (daily/weekly), where they filter out noise, but they still lag since they’re based on moving averages.


For a long-term perspective, I’d recommend incorporating volume analysis, moving averages (like the 200 EMA), and trend-based indicators like ADX to confirm momentum. Also, considering macro trends and liquidity zones can help refine entries and exits.


If you're looking for more custom setups, have you explored anchored VWAP or order flow analysis? They can give a clearer picture of institutional positioning and help avoid false signals. Curious to hear your take!
 
Technical analysis is like astrology for traders—sometimes it lines up perfectly, other times it’s just noise. RSI and MACD? Sure, they can be useful, but they lag behind real price action. By the time RSI divergence confirms or a MACD crossover happens, the move is often halfway done.


Big players aren’t trading based on these retail indicators—they’re using algos, liquidity zones, and order flow data. That’s why so many traders get wrecked relying on classic TA alone. If you’re serious about trading, you’ve got to go beyond the basics. Otherwise, you’re just reacting to the market while the real money moves ahead of you.
 
From an economist’s perspective, technical indicators like RSI and MACD are useful, but they function more as lagging signals than predictive tools. Their effectiveness largely depends on market structure, liquidity, and trader psychology rather than any inherent forecasting ability.


Key Considerations for RSI & MACD:​


  • RSI Divergence – Works well in range-bound markets but often fails in strong trends. Overbought/oversold conditions don’t always indicate reversals—momentum can stay extreme for longer than expected.
  • MACD Crossovers – More reliable on higher timeframes (daily/weekly) but can produce false signals in choppy markets. Its strength lies in confirming trends rather than timing entries.
  • Market Context Matters – Indicators work best when combined with volume analysis, order flow, and macroeconomic factors (e.g., Fed policy, liquidity cycles).

What Actually Works?​


  • Liquidity Zones & Order Blocks – Institutions trade around liquidity; focusing on these levels can be more predictive than classic TA.
  • On-Chain Metrics (for Crypto) – Whale movements, exchange inflows/outflows, and open interest can provide deeper insights.
  • Algorithmic/Quantitative Approaches – Many professional traders now use machine learning or statistical arbitrage rather than retail TA methods.

Final Thought:​


Traditional indicators like RSI and MACD can still be useful as secondary confirmation tools, but traders relying solely on them may struggle against high-frequency and institutional trading algorithms that dominate modern markets.
 
TA is tricky—RSI and MACD can be useful, but yeah, they definitely lag at times. RSI divergence is solid for spotting reversals, but it works best with confirmation from volume or support/resistance levels. MACD crossovers? I find them more reliable on higher timeframes (like daily charts) rather than lower ones, where they throw too many false signals.


Lately, I’ve been experimenting with a mix of volume profile and EMA ribbons to filter out noise. Some traders swear by custom indicators like order flow tools or even AI-powered analytics.


What’s been working best for you so far? Have you tried combining RSI/MACD with other strategies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom