Pre/post bar Fill%

Right now I’m only working in the scope of one out of four (Magnitude/Omega). Within this scope contains multiple approaches, but also 3-6 time frames. Hourly, daily, weekly, monthly. Also available are H4 or H6 or even H8. Thus, it’s (the ideas) not as simple as Wave versions 1.1-x, because I’m working in different areas.

That being said, here’s what I’m working on atm. I remember my talks with Relativity in the early days, back when I was ready to relearn everything I knew about how trading fx worked. When we were discussing waves and the criteria to have a “complete” trading system, one of the things that was mentioned was the need to be self adapting in nature. I wondered and wondered how this could be possible or accomplished. I’m currently pondering the conclusion that a complete system using pure meta data absolutely needs to use averages.

I’m also currently in the process of figuring out if there’s a real difference between EMA and SMA. I’m only 1 or 2 tests in and while there are certainly differences, they are not noticeable just yet.

 

I took a quick detour and looked at the kinds of bars that form between mover bars on the H1 TF. My assumption was that before a trade-able range occurred (I’m currently interested in bars that are >24 pips), the bar would be in an underfill state. In other words, an underfill would occur in the Fill%, leading the market to “make up” lost Fill % and we would end up seeing a bar that would overfill. I think there is a way to make things less.. discretionary, but for now:

Fill% predictive

Interesting no? Over 60% of the bars occurring before bars that have H-L > 24 are in a fill state of 70%-120% of the average. While that doesn’t quite answer my question about underfill leading to overfill, it is providing some hot spots. I would think that the average fill is 100%, but again I am wrong (swapped on the conditional formatting, oops)

Capture

 

More or less the same results. The 70-100% fill is just very common. I did 1 last study looking at what kind of bar was likely to occur after a fill% between 70-120%, the range of interest from earlier.

Capture1

 

As it turns out, the majority is actually under the expected range of 24. Smart statistics! Correlation is not causation, and fills of 70-120% do not cause Omegas of 24+, even though Omegas of 24+ tend to have fills of 70-120%.

 

Also worth noting, bars that overfill are more likely to overfill again more than anything else, overwhelmingly. Some clear implications of this, at least to me, will be doing a lot more research.

Capture

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s