(binned per thread starter's request) Market bottom rotation trad

ORCL sold some, rest break even.

APC potential end of the day short squeeze with trend rotation.
Also WYNN on watch.
Last 20 min.

USDJPY setting up.

USDJPY stopped out. Micro shelf failed.

for m15, it is posing to another attempt to takeout the supply, not a solid one

but on m5/m1, the trendline is broken, similar to a pullback leg thing.........

since it is a multi-timeframe, i give a try

not highly symmetric or condense

but if momentum shows at the red arrow, i'd give a try.

AAPL running into new all time highs, looking for long micro plays. Yesterdays worked out well.

PM, needs to bake HH.

PM long sold break even, no proper momentum, and too strong drop back down.

Turkish lira, new bear macro plotted. 5.5X from previous post reached, now the new catalysts starting to take shape and further pressure on Turkish markets to start soon. Its a more lighter macro as there might be more swing before the actually bull target on USDTRY is baked.
M1 to guide for plays.

BK and HON last end of the day plays.

will watch this tomorrow....... momentum, the only thing it needs, i guess.........

USDTRY bull target baked.

GBPUSD bull trend behaviour change, if further demand gives up could be further spill lower.

USDTRY showing weakness if it cracks could be short.

MCHP

The only trade i placed BE SL on today, and the one that ripped straight on after i got stopped. Placed BE SL right on lows on micro shelf and got stopped before it made a rip.

AAL on watch.

done some test on HTF,
mainly trading bottom rotation and pullback leg on H4, sometimes, I drop to H1 for finer details on PA

simulation period: generally 12~14 months, 10 pairs, 3 commodities, and 1 stock
my observation summary:
1. except GN, generally, we should expect about 1 trade setup for 1 month. GN getting 6 is probably due to I stayed on H1 for too long.
2. FX is relatively harder to trade, commodity easier, and microsoft stock is most profitable to trade, according to profit factor 3.7.
3. some pairs are harder to trade, and NU even turned loss overall----profit factor merely 0.8
4. overall it is quite profitable in the tests. profit factor 1.73.
* note that 'profit factor' = total profit / total loss. If overall profitalbe, PF should be more than 1.

so there are what I derive (won't say 'conclusion' )
1. the method carries clear edge on 4H timeframe, as I merely and strictly (to my knowledge) apply Janpec's method.
2. but you have to trade multiple instruments to ensure the profitable outcome.

there are some potential bias to be aware
1. my own reading bias
2. the last 14 months might favor the method
3. microsoft stock might favor the method (as i only test one stock) or similar

I manually did lots of m15/m5/m1 test over past 2 months, test results were profitable, no doubt, but didn't save the stats.
I remember:
on M1, usually I get 1 trade per day per pair.
on M5, 1 trade every 1 or 2 days.

so let's see if the setup frequency is consistent on LTF ~ HTF.

for LTF, m5, let's assume for every two days, I get one m5 setup, so the frequency = 1 / (2 x 1440 minutes/5) = 1 / 576
in other words, for about 576 candles, we pretty much may expect to see a setup on average.

for HTF, H4 (use 240 minutes in calculation), per the tests above. 1 trade per month ( i use 22 days for a month), so = 1 / ( 22 x 1440 minutes/240) = 1 / 132

this is sort of surprising to me, that is, in LTF M5, for every 576 candles, I can spot 1 setup; but for HTF H4, for every 132 bars, I can spot 1 setup.
in other words, I am more efficient on HTF than on LTF when using Janpec's method.

Again, note that there are potential bias, for one: Forextester runs a bit faster on LTF, maybe I failed to spot more LTF setups due to my reading speed.

because the difference is big enough to surprise me, i'd try a couple more LTF m5/m1 test in the next days to validate my observations above.

If it is true to facts, then HTF is more efficient to trade.

and note that we, in real life, cannot capture every setup in m5/m1, as it is too fast and we are not sitting by the PC; while on HTF, one must trade as many as possible instruments so that missing 1 setup (for that month) is okay.......

Awesome data there, a bit of bias in some but overall accurate.

Thing to note why you got impression that HTF yields more setups is because FX tester has a very poor data on lower TFs. Anything bellow M15 shouldnt be considered on FX tester, unless you get some external data source. I am assuming that that was your problem as it was on my side, altough it could be the case that you did have good price data, in which case i am not sure why you came with the conclusion that HTF yielded more setups.

Just like in any stress test its extremelly important that you cover all the blind spots, otherwise you will come with wrong conclusions. I mentioned before that i did 1000s of statistical tests in my early 2 years of trading and pretty much every single test was useless becuase my initial presumtions did not made a good structured test.
For your test make sure that you do have excellent data for low TFs if you are using FX tester. Also ensure that you really have no bias in either case, to do that make sure that for you both HTF and LTF charts look the same and feel the same, whatever the variables are constructing it. If you get a different bias then something is off, and you need to find what is that blind spot.

Your observation in regards to MSFT stock is spot on. It is very liquid very highly traded asset and it yields often a plays due to very strong liquidity and strong participation of traders each day in that asset. MSFT is never in a dull phase, as soon as market open that thing becomes playground for traders. There are few more stocks like that such as NKTR for example.


As you observed, you need decent amount of trades each month to take this game seriously. That means on high TF a huge amount of assets is a must, there is no such thing as being consistent trader with 1 HTF asset. The higher you go on TF the more assets you need. However, you can also go from different angle to decrease the need for too many istruments, this is by adding more plays to the playbook and that is why i am pointing on this thread so many different plays / patterns.
To take it seriously you need to structure trading like a business, and make a plan. And there are few ways to appraoch it. Practically speaking for example there are two ways someone in your position with full time job could approach it:

1.Trade HTF using 2 most common plays (supply takeout and pullback leg after impulse), trade FX, crypto and equities (aprox 500 assets), make a 1 check a day after job (about 15 min to go trough all assets) to see if anything might be close to setting up, place alert and then once it rings you get into play. That is doable method that gets enough plays each month for consistency. Is it best method? For sure not, because its very un-targeted and flimsy. This method would under-perform, it is profitable but it does under performs.

2.Focus only on plays with strong context and wait for play to setup, and pick only a play that fits with your busy schudule. For example a great combo for that would be playing heavy short squeezes. Its highly structured method that requires only 1-2 minutes of search a day, you base trading only around 95% winning pattern which is extremely high and since most of those plays come at play in first hour of market open you also know very well when to have access to market. There are aprox 20 huge short squeezes a month with half of those delivering strong which is well enough for consistent gains even with very flimsy huge SLs. This gives you strong context, strong structure to your trading (discipline).
Or you could use last 1 hour of market trading on equities to seek for short squeezes. This method however is a lot more difficult as it requires more experiance to be very quick since at those plays you need to be able to structure play fast and execute fast ,so implementing this method in profitable would take months of practice.


In general trading very high TFs like H4 or upward has big downsides in trading. Mostly you will not hear anyone mention that because most participants in markets are not efficiently oriented when it comes to thinking, however if you place efficiency (where the result is a consequence of time plus variables of execution and repetition) then HTF trading will be a big downside for traders development. Every trader goes trough development process no matter if start making money from day 1 or not. And since most dont then the development speed will hugely impact to when you start becoming consistent. And here are major costs to speed of development that come with HTF trading:

-number of plays and repetitions is low, decreasing the learning and adaption of trading skills (psychology, handling emotions, changing opinions based on change of reality, literally 100s of things to list).

What you will probably hear is most HTF traders will tell you that with such orientation you are more calm, make better trades, trade less and i can tell you 100% from my observations of consistent traders that that is only the case for a well developed highly consistent traders with years and years of performance data, which statistically is only a 0.01% of total HTF traders. For all the rest which we all are developing traders, that will not apply. To push evolution process on developing trader you need to push that trader into plays as much as possible and keep stress testing. One good analogy for that is machine learning with neural networks. How do you train a "dumb" AI that knows nothing about a complex process and strategy such as Neuralink company did? Just throw it into fire and just keep going, keep trying, keep testing , keep observing and learning. Over a billion execution that AI was strategically stronger than any human oponent it was thrown against, and mind that before it reached that phase, it "died" billion times in the process. Trading is the same field its an infinite game with very little or none consequences (as long as you do it right, and only put money once you have edge) where you are allowed keep the development going the more you engage in process. Obviously without learning from mistakes nothing good will come from just doing something. So to make LTF trading efficient for trader its important to track progress, go trough historical trades finding whats not working, keep learning from mistakes, that is the whole point why that AI was as strong as it was, learning from mistakes, and the higher the frequency of mistakes, the more and the quicker you adapt. That isnt my personal belief, its a universal fact proven by 4 billion years of evolution.

I am not "selling" LTF trading at all, if the efficiency costs and results were the same, there would be no point backing any of the two ways. But the reality is that there are huge efficiency differences.