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:
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)
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.
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.