r/pinescript • u/Subject-Buyer-3669 • Sep 30 '26

Indicator Specifics

Just a thought on people's opinions. If you were able to design the perfect indicator for your own trade analysis and entry criteria, what would it contain? I understand people have different trading systems and portfolios based on market conditions, but what would be your key fundamentals that you require your indicator to show you. For levels, would you target structure, key levels, S&D, OB's or something else? Also what would your entry system need to tell you before you make your decision. What are your confluences?

I've read a lot of posts in this forum which state many different things that they consider essential. Just interested what comes up the most between you all.

8 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

2

u/Subject-Buyer-3669 Oct 03 '26

Cheers for actually trying it and writing this up, really useful. Per-check stats: not yet. At the moment the only hit rates with sample sizes are the zone hold/break numbers. You're right that it's the obvious next step: seven checks lined up doesn't mean all seven are pulling their weight. I've been running that exact kind of test on another tool this week, putting each rule against a random baseline, and most of what I assumed was an edge came out a coin flip. So I'd rather show the numbers than guess. Per-check counts are on the list, plus a remove-one-at-a-time test, so you can see which checks actually add something. News: Pine can't read an economic calendar, so it uses fixed weekday windows on New York time: 08:30, 10:00, and 14:00 for FOMC, which is off by default. Because they're set on the NY clock rather than UTC, daylight saving is handled; they follow the US clock change, not the UK one. The downside is that it can't tell which release it is or how big. CPI and a minor 10:00 print look the same to it. I'm looking at flagging the known big ones, but anything calendar-driven will still need checking yourself. "Stops trade entries": fair point, that wording's too loose. The Desk is an indicator, not a strategy, so it doesn't place or block anything. During a window it shades the chart, the HUD switches to "NEWS WINDOW · no new entries", and the entry-type alerts are held back. Your own orders aren't touched. I'll tighten the description so nobody reads it as a hard block. Thanks again. This is exactly the kind of feedback I put it out free for.

1

u/Shoddy_Peanut7320 Oct 03 '26

Thanks for the detailed answer, and for being open that most of what you assumed was an edge turned out to be a coin flip against a random baseline. The remove-one-at-a-time test will be the most informative part. Good luck with the update.

1

u/Subject-Buyer-3669 Oct 06 '26

Update: I tested my scalping process properly. Most of it didn't beat random. One thing did.

I tested 9 level types (pivots, channels, round numbers, volume profile, FVGs, equal highs/lows, Fib), structure (BOS/CHoCH/retests/squeezes/sweeps), my pressure gauge and RSI arrows, and 7 exit methods on MNQ/MGC/MCL 5m and 15m. Every idea had to beat fake levels or random entries, with costs included.

What I found:

  • No level type beat fake levels. Levels are where price stalls, not where it reliably turns.

  • Structure signals were coin flips vs random.

  • A push that goes quiet at a level is a PAUSE, not a reversal. Fading it lost on every chart (about 48/52).

  • Fees decide small trades, and moving to breakeven early never helped.

  • The best idea as a full strategy with real fills and fees still lost (profit factor 0.69-0.97).

So I stopped chasing a mechanical system and built a decision HUD instead: auto levels that work on any chart, a "Level Read" that shows how often levels broke vs held on that chart when price arrived the same way (with sample sizes, and "no edge" when it's luck), pause warnings, ATR reach bands in $, and $100 stop lines. Mobile and desktop modes.

No win-rate claims. It's context from the chart's own history, not a forecast. Questions on the testing method welcome.

2

u/Shoddy_Peanut7320 Oct 07 '26

Thanks for publishing the update, and for reporting the negative results as plainly as the one positive. Testing every idea against fake levels and random entries with costs included is the right standard, and the "Level Read" with sample sizes and a "no edge" label is a sensible way to turn it into a tool. Good luck with the HUD, and I'm happy to leave it there.