Moderator: moderators
PebbleTrader wrote:If we believe that price is the same no matter what time frame you are looking at...then there is no such thing as a superior time frame to trade. Price is moving the same amount.
Timeframes only show a condensed version of what actually took place. M1, M5, M15, M30, H1, D1, W1, etc., is an indicator that show only a small portion of the different price levels that actually occurred most often the high, low, open and close in the form of a shape (bar or candlestick).
I could create my own custom time frame and it wouldn't matter one bit.
The only reason we use different time frames is so we can see more or less data.
As for time, it is not as useful as some would believe. It's just there to create a sense of order in the market where without time, complete chaos would exist.
It is not so much the passage of time that really matters, but the subsequent intervals of price numbers that follow.
In the end, it doesn't matter to me how long it takes for a big fat check to arrive just as long as it's in a reasonable amount of time.
For the most part, time should just be ignored
Relativity wrote:I didn't do something like this. But the concept of 'at which point price / time movement will being to have an acceptable level of degrade'. I merely used this :
Time Factor for e.g M5 is 5, since the timeframe above it is M1x5
This one is simple.
Pip Factor for e.g M5 is 32.9, since 3.6 pips / 6 pips / 5 time factor * 100
This is to compare how well this TF pip wise really performed when compared to time factor. Aka speed.
Results for both balanced (only counting candles within candles, MTF wise) and flat (don't care about MTF).
Results look almost the same. H1 always 'performs well at least 70% of time'. The more interesting thing is D1 and W1. There will be a dip at D1, then at W1, one can see an obvious (attempt) towards 'recovery'.
I don't have enough data for balanced results for MN1 TF, but enough for flat results. One can see MN1 didn't attempt to 'continue the recovery'.
WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?! =>
deltaskelta wrote:PebbleTrader wrote:If we believe that price is the same no matter what time frame you are looking at...then there is no such thing as a superior time frame to trade. Price is moving the same amount.
Timeframes only show a condensed version of what actually took place. M1, M5, M15, M30, H1, D1, W1, etc., is an indicator that show only a small portion of the different price levels that actually occurred most often the high, low, open and close in the form of a shape (bar or candlestick).
I could create my own custom time frame and it wouldn't matter one bit.
The only reason we use different time frames is so we can see more or less data.
As for time, it is not as useful as some would believe. It's just there to create a sense of order in the market where without time, complete chaos would exist.
It is not so much the passage of time that really matters, but the subsequent intervals of price numbers that follow.
In the end, it doesn't matter to me how long it takes for a big fat check to arrive just as long as it's in a reasonable amount of time.
For the most part, time should just be ignored
I know what you are saying, and in theory I believe it is correct, but in reality people do give weight to time in order to limit the chaos.
So time must be looked at as a way to judge what your opponents are doing and provides a clear path to act accordingly. If there is a lot more people and money acting on a higher TF, then that TF will have more weight attached to it.
In short, the characteristics of price makes it "behave" the same on all TF, but what we are trying to do is find the TF with the highest magnitude of influence over the rest.
Just my humble interpretation and opinion on the matter.
deltaskelta wrote:Relativity wrote:I didn't do something like this. But the concept of 'at which point price / time movement will being to have an acceptable level of degrade'. I merely used this :
Time Factor for e.g M5 is 5, since the timeframe above it is M1x5
This one is simple.
Pip Factor for e.g M5 is 32.9, since 3.6 pips / 6 pips / 5 time factor * 100
This is to compare how well this TF pip wise really performed when compared to time factor. Aka speed.
Results for both balanced (only counting candles within candles, MTF wise) and flat (don't care about MTF).
Results look almost the same. H1 always 'performs well at least 70% of time'. The more interesting thing is D1 and W1. There will be a dip at D1, then at W1, one can see an obvious (attempt) towards 'recovery'.
I don't have enough data for balanced results for MN1 TF, but enough for flat results. One can see MN1 didn't attempt to 'continue the recovery'.
WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?! =>
Relativity, I had one observation of your charts now that I understand exactly what is going on in them.
The calculation for pip factor is = (higher TF range/lowerTF range)/(time factor)
but when it gets plotted into the purple curve, it is being multiplied by (time factor) again, thus canceling out the time factor, which is important in the calculation. So you are left with (higher tf range/lower tf range) I do not know if you did this on purpose or on accident, but it seems to me that the highest pip factor would be the king TF.
Is there something I am missing here?
