<prompt> Human: Format editsPREFACE:Im fairly young and near the start of my career. During internships etc, I always contributed to my Roth IRA but did very little with those funds until recently. Over the past year I have become incredibly interested in FIER and general investment strategies for a variety life goals. I understand how important it is to get a jumpstart on financial health as soon as possible. Im interested in setting myself up on the proper railroad tracks to direct my financial future to align with my best guess of where I want it to go, while maintaining flexibility because well life happens.Something I read almost everywhere is along the lines of nobody can time the market, its impossible. Its all about time IN the market. A cornerstone of your investments should be low cost total stock market index tracking funds. Prices go up? Great, youve made money. Prices go down? Great, shares are on sale. Just keep buying, no matter what. Automate as much of the process as you can to remove yourself as much as possible. Losses are only realized if you panic and sell when the market is down. Generally, market entry via initial lump sum investments perform better overall than legging in with dollar cost averaging, but always keep contributing once you establish a position.While I agree that trying to time the market is a fools errand, I believe a compromise must exist. I think a pseudo-timing method based on a long-term indicator would yield better return as well as freedom to use your money as you want. I also think that countless people 100x smarter than me must have thought of similar ideas, so why do I never read anything about them? Are underlying assumptions in mysimilar approaches flawed? Have I simply made math errors? Is it pointless to only look at the growth of a lump sum without the effects of future contributions over time still working on that? Constructive criticism, suggestions to improve my first cut estimates, etc are very welcomed!THE COMPROMISE:Apply a simple long-term indicator to pseudo-time the general trend of the market. People seem to generally accept the 200 day simple moving average as a reasonable long-term indicator. Instead of blindly buying regardless of market condition, why not follow a few basic trading guidelines:Lump sum establish position buy signal: price rises above 200 day simple moving average or a certain aboveSell all signal: price falls below 200 day simple moving average or a certain belowContinue regular contributions when receiving buy signalAs an example I went through the history of Vanguards total stock market fund, VTSMX, and identified most of the buysell points according to this strategy. While this is a more active approach that is less set and forget it than buy-and-hold, it historically seems to require only a handful of actions per decade. I admit that it also requires more touch time because many people like to automatically deduct amounts from their paychecks and send it straight into these types of long-term funds. With my proposed method, it may make more sense to send those deductions to the money marketcash section of portfolio so it doesnt buy funds when you are gettubg sell signals. Additionally, this 200 day strategy requires more trades and assumes you do not pay any feescommissions for trading eg, trading VTSMX in a Vanguard account.COMMENTS:Realize that this strategy never attempts to buy in at the very bottom or sell out at the very top; it simply tries to limit risk by avoiding the bulk of massive drawdowns, and it seems to outperform a simple buy-and-hold Returns This comparison assumes that any growth over time is included whenever you buy back in eg, started with 10k, sold at 12k, buy back in with 12k. This comparison does not include any further contributions over time. It simply shows what growth happens to a certain over time given the two strategies. I am working on what it looks like when you employ the 200 day strategy PLUS dollar cost average contributions whenever there is a buy signal. So far it also shows 200 day buy-and-hold, but I am not satisfied enough with the fidelity that model to post yet.Another advantage of this strategy is it seems to allow more flexibility with your money. Market in a multi-year bear run? With buy-and-hold, your investment to that point seems frozen if you wantneed cash, you are stuck taking losses conversely, seems like if you are committed to this strategy and have the cash flow and emergency funds to do so, this would be a great time to suck up extra shares for cheap. Following the 200 day, you were out at a reasonable price but not the highest, and can put that money to work elsewhere andor reinvest it once a strong buy signal reappears.TLDR:Most people tend to agree that long term investing in total market funds similar to VTSMX is a good idea. Timing the market is not possible, but it seems like following a long-term indicator can increase returns dramatically and allow more flexibility with your portfolio. I showed the historic difference in growth if you simply buy-and-hold a lump sum amount versus long-term indicator buy and sells. I am working to improve my model that explores the historic growth difference between the strategies while including dollar cost averaging after initial lump sum investment. So far, I think that will also show buy-and-hold as inferior.I understand that past events do not guarantee future results. Please remember that Im just some guy on the internet with an idea seeking comments, but little investing experience so far. Its possible Ive made stupid mistakesassumptions. Im trying to soak up as much information as I can. Constructive criticism, suggestions to improve my first cut estimates, general insight from more experienced investors, etc are very welcomed!  <response>: What youre talking about is called trend following. Its been around for a long time and it is generally accepted as a way to increase risk adjusted returns by reducing drawdowns and volatility slightly, and either keeping returns about the same or increasing them slightly. 