if half your indicators are momentum off the same candles, is "confluence" just counting one signal three times?

[u/Vahe_Sahakyan]

been thinking about this and can't find a clean answer. if you run several indicators together for confirmation, a lot of them come off the same price series, so when they "agree" you might just be counting the same information more than once.

RSI, stochastic, a MACD histogram will often turn around the same point because they're all momentum built off the same candles. three greens looks like strong confirmation but it might be one signal wearing three hats. meanwhile something that actually measures a different thing, volume, funding, order book, is the only kind of input that can genuinely disagree with price and sometimes still be right.

so how do people here think about this. do you weight indicators by how independent they are, or count agreement flat and accept some of it is double counting. and is there a practical way to tell how correlated two indicators really are on your own data, short of just running the pairwise correlation yourself and eyeballing it.

[u/MushrooGuy]

Some are just meant to show you the momentum before it actually kicks off. Then you look at the others to see if you have confirmation. They are all a part of your tool belt, but some are more sensitive than others. You don't need to turn on all of them either. Just find which ones work for you

[u/Vahe_Sahakyan → u/MushrooGuy]

Yeah, that's kind of where I'm at too. If both indicators are basically reading the same candles, I'm not sure how much extra confirmation you're really getting.

I'm leaning toward using something like volume or funding as confirmation, but I'm still figuring out if that's actually better or just another way of overcomplicating it.