Kreslik.com - traders community since 2006

I have been trading FX for some time, and obviously I wouldn't bee here if I had it figured out.
I recently stumbled on TRO and found what is said is straight forward and, for the most part, what I can comprehend.
My question is, It seems the 1m is the smallest TF being used, but will the same rules apply to the 30 second or even the 15 second?

Thanks
~Stan

Bowas wrote:I have been trading FX for some time, and obviously I wouldn't bee here if I had it figured out.
I recently stumbled on TRO and found what is said is straight forward and, for the most part, what I can comprehend.
My question is, It seems the 1m is the smallest TF being used, but will the same rules apply to the 30 second or even the 15 second?

Thanks
~Stan

PRICE IS THE SAME ON ALL CHART PERIODS.

Because a picture is worth a...

Yes. I realize the price is the same regardless of the TF being viewed, but I guess what I am asking is, Are the concepts of exits/entires the same but perhaps have smaller TP or SL targets. It seems to me, at this time anyway, the 1m has good results with a 25 pip TP, but from the experience here might one use the 15 second and look for only 10 pips?
I have done quite a bit of back testing, and will continue to do so, but if there are reasons not to entertain the smaller time frames, I need not reinvent the wheel, so to speak.

Thanks again!!

The longer you wait to exit the larger the chart that you are trading, not because price is different but because the trading ranges become larger with time; we know that if we enter on a minute chart and hold for a month that we must be trading something in-between because between a minute and a month we subjected ourselves to larger price swings, something that we would not do from the perspective of the minute chart.

Working the problem backwards we can say that any chart in which your stop loss cannot be seen at a logical place is NOT a chart that you are trading.

Bowas wrote:Yes. I realize the price is the same regardless of the TF being viewed, but I guess what I am asking is, Are the concepts of exits/entires the same but perhaps have smaller TP or SL targets. It seems to me, at this time anyway, the 1m has good results with a 25 pip TP, but from the experience here might one use the 15 second and look for only 10 pips?
I have done quite a bit of back testing, and will continue to do so, but if there are reasons not to entertain the smaller time frames, I need not reinvent the wheel, so to speak.

Thanks again!!

Don't waste your time backtesting.

TheRumpledOne wrote:

Bowas wrote:Yes. I realize the price is the same regardless of the TF being viewed, but I guess what I am asking is, Are the concepts of exits/entires the same but perhaps have smaller TP or SL targets. It seems to me, at this time anyway, the 1m has good results with a 25 pip TP, but from the experience here might one use the 15 second and look for only 10 pips?
I have done quite a bit of back testing, and will continue to do so, but if there are reasons not to entertain the smaller time frames, I need not reinvent the wheel, so to speak.

Thanks again!!

Don't waste your time backtesting.

Why do you not recommend back testing?
It would seem to be an important thing to do to see if what I think I ma learning and understanding is historically proven.
I understand the past is the past, but certain aspects of the past are repeated, as I understand it anyway.
What am I missing?

Bowas wrote:

TheRumpledOne wrote:

Bowas wrote:Yes. I realize the price is the same regardless of the TF being viewed, but I guess what I am asking is, Are the concepts of exits/entires the same but perhaps have smaller TP or SL targets. It seems to me, at this time anyway, the 1m has good results with a 25 pip TP, but from the experience here might one use the 15 second and look for only 10 pips?
I have done quite a bit of back testing, and will continue to do so, but if there are reasons not to entertain the smaller time frames, I need not reinvent the wheel, so to speak.

Thanks again!!

Don't waste your time backtesting.

Why do you not recommend back testing?
It would seem to be an important thing to do to see if what I think I ma learning and understanding is historically proven.
I understand the past is the past, but certain aspects of the past are repeated, as I understand it anyway.
What am I missing?

Here is one reason:

Definition of 'Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'
In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known.

When applied to trading this means that your action in the market had an impact on the outcome of the market for that day and your inaction would have also had an impact. So if you are back testing a trading strategy you make the (invalid) assumption that you could have bought or sold a stock or future at a given price and the market would have continued as it had done and you would have made a certain profit or loss. However, your action in the market could have influenced where the market traded to invalidating your back tested results.



Better to use statistics like frequency distribution. That's why I have written frequency distribution indicators.

TheRumpledOne wrote:

Bowas wrote:

TheRumpledOne wrote:
Don't waste your time backtesting.

Why do you not recommend back testing?
It would seem to be an important thing to do to see if what I think I ma learning and understanding is historically proven.
I understand the past is the past, but certain aspects of the past are repeated, as I understand it anyway.
What am I missing?

Here is one reason:

Definition of 'Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'
In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known.

When applied to trading this means that your action in the market had an impact on the outcome of the market for that day and your inaction would have also had an impact. So if you are back testing a trading strategy you make the (invalid) assumption that you could have bought or sold a stock or future at a given price and the market would have continued as it had done and you would have made a certain profit or loss. However, your action in the market could have influenced where the market traded to invalidating your back tested results.



Better to use statistics like frequency distribution. That's why I have written frequency distribution indicators.

Thank you. That actually makes a lot of sense. I do appreciate and enjoy your logic in your videos. I have been the victim of the squiggly line syndrome, but perhaps you are providing the antidote!

Bowas wrote:

TheRumpledOne wrote:

Bowas wrote:
Why do you not recommend back testing?
It would seem to be an important thing to do to see if what I think I ma learning and understanding is historically proven.
I understand the past is the past, but certain aspects of the past are repeated, as I understand it anyway.
What am I missing?

Here is one reason:

Definition of 'Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'
In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known.

When applied to trading this means that your action in the market had an impact on the outcome of the market for that day and your inaction would have also had an impact. So if you are back testing a trading strategy you make the (invalid) assumption that you could have bought or sold a stock or future at a given price and the market would have continued as it had done and you would have made a certain profit or loss. However, your action in the market could have influenced where the market traded to invalidating your back tested results.



Better to use statistics like frequency distribution. That's why I have written frequency distribution indicators.

Thank you. That actually makes a lot of sense. I do appreciate and enjoy your logic in your videos. I have been the victim of the squiggly line syndrome, but perhaps you are providing the antidote!

You can either be a RAT or a YALE STUDENT.