Setups categorization (Page 2) - Traders Hideout | futures.io
futures.io futures trading
 

Go Back   futures.io

> Futures Trading, News, Charts and Platforms > Traders Hideout


Setups categorization
Started:August 1st, 2016 (03:03 PM) by xplorer Views / Replies:923 / 24
Last Reply:November 10th, 2016 (03:40 PM) Attachments:3

Welcome to futures.io.

Welcome, Guest!

This forum was established to help traders (especially futures traders) by openly sharing indicators, strategies, methods, trading journals and discussing the psychology of trading.

We are fundamentally different than most other trading forums:
  • We work extremely hard to keep things positive on our forums.
  • We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendor advertising in posts.
  • We firmly believe in openness and encourage sharing. The holy grail is within you, it is not something tangible you can download.
  • We expect our members to participate and become a part of the community. Help yourself by helping others.


You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free and simple, and we will never resell your private information.

-- Big Mike
     

Reply
 3  
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread

Setups categorization

Old October 17th, 2016, 07:11 PM   #11 (permalink)
Market Wizard
London UK
 
Futures Experience: Beginner
Platform: CQG
Favorite Futures: Futures
 
xplorer's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,490 since Sep 2015
Thanks: 2,509 given, 1,863 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


aquarian1 View Post
Whether you go back or just forward would depend upon your time and goals. If you have categories do you have a way of knowing (a journal with thought before the entry of what you were thinking it was e.g breakout?). Are you doing this to see how often they worked out?

Thanks aquarian1 and the answer to both your questions is yes. I have a journal (well it's a log with a comments section) where I jot down what I am thinking as I trade, or just once the trade is finished and the main purpose to this is to understand whether certain setups work better than others and of course to improve the ones that don't.

Reply With Quote
     
The following user says Thank You to xplorer for this post:
     

Old October 17th, 2016, 08:24 PM   #12 (permalink)
The fun is in the numbers
Point Roberts, WA, USA
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: IB and free NT
Broker/Data: IB
Favorite Futures: ES
 
aquarian1's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,198 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 696 given, 970 received


xplorer View Post
Thanks aquarian1 and the answer to both your questions is yes. I have a journal (well it's a log with a comments section) where I jot down what I am thinking as I trade, or just once the trade is finished and the main purpose to this is to understand whether certain setups work better than others and of course to improve the ones that don't.

Well, I think that puts you miles ahead of most people.
Knowing what you were thinking before you entered the trade is excellent.

-----------
Sometimes you might see a breakout for reasons:
A, B, C
and you were correct.

Then another time you might see a breakout for reasons:
A, B, C
and you were incorrect. So if this happens there may be factor D that distinguishes the two - existing in one and not in another.

(I guess the above is a bit obvious - oh well I try..LOL)

Good trading to everyone.
Reply With Quote
     
The following user says Thank You to aquarian1 for this post:
     

Old October 22nd, 2016, 03:38 PM   #13 (permalink)
The fun is in the numbers
Point Roberts, WA, USA
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: IB and free NT
Broker/Data: IB
Favorite Futures: ES
 
aquarian1's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,198 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 696 given, 970 received


Your thread of setup categorization has me thinking.

First I was thinking about setup identification. It seems we often look at a chart and try to match what we see to a setup. This can be prone to us fitting what we see to one of our set-ups. Then we take action on that identification and get a result.

So we look at a chart and say "this is a breakout" for example.
Have we correctly identified a breakout?
Would someone else have looked at the chart and also concluded it was a breakout?
If our identification was faulty and we trade a breakout and then have a result
losing trade/ winning trade

We keep score and then conclude 40& of breakouts are winning trades. Our conclusion is based on several things including correct setup identification (which could have been correct sometimes and faulty sometimes). If the identification was always correct we might experience 65% of breakouts as winning trades.

Good trading to everyone.
Reply With Quote
     
The following user says Thank You to aquarian1 for this post:
     

Old October 22nd, 2016, 03:51 PM   #14 (permalink)
The fun is in the numbers
Point Roberts, WA, USA
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: IB and free NT
Broker/Data: IB
Favorite Futures: ES
 
aquarian1's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,198 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 696 given, 970 received

What about "reverse engineering" it?

We could identify (after the fact) after the fact a setup, e.g breakout trades. Then we could go back and take chart snaps up to the breakout time.

We could stack the charts vertically (each of the same minutes per bar and time length).
We could then see in how many cases condition A only existed, B only, C only, conditions A&B, condition B&C, condition A&C, conditions A,B,C
, none of the conditions A,B,C.

When we have group them (the setup charts) e.g A&B we can pull up a (setup result charts) and see commonalities in setup result charts (e.g 3 times band width)

Good trading to everyone.
Reply With Quote
     
The following user says Thank You to aquarian1 for this post:
     

Old October 23rd, 2016, 10:34 AM   #15 (permalink)
Market Wizard
London UK
 
Futures Experience: Beginner
Platform: CQG
Favorite Futures: Futures
 
xplorer's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,490 since Sep 2015
Thanks: 2,509 given, 1,863 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary

Futures Edge on FIO

aquarian1 View Post
Your thread of setup categorization has me thinking.

First I was thinking about setup identification. It seems we often look at a chart and try to match what we see to a setup. This can be prone to us fitting what we see to one of our set-ups. Then we take action on that identification and get a result.

So we look at a chart and say "this is a breakout" for example.
Have we correctly identified a breakout?
Would someone else have looked at the chart and also concluded it was a breakout?
If our identification was faulty and we trade a breakout and then have a result
losing trade/ winning trade
Yep, the above are good points. From my perspective, certain setups would be defined in such a way that anyone would generally agree they fall under a given category. So for instance a breakout would be defined as price being in a range for a given amount of time and then breaking out of that range, and so on.

We keep score and then conclude 40& of breakouts are winning trades. Our conclusion is based on several things including correct setup identification (which could have been correct sometimes and faulty sometimes). If the identification was always correct we might experience 65% of breakouts as winning trades.

Thanks aquarian1 - my thoughts above in bold

Reply With Quote
     

Old October 23rd, 2016, 10:37 AM   #16 (permalink)
Market Wizard
London UK
 
Futures Experience: Beginner
Platform: CQG
Favorite Futures: Futures
 
xplorer's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,490 since Sep 2015
Thanks: 2,509 given, 1,863 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


aquarian1 View Post
What about "reverse engineering" it?

We could identify (after the fact) after the fact a setup, e.g breakout trades. Then we could go back and take chart snaps up to the breakout time.

We could stack the charts vertically (each of the same minutes per bar and time length).
We could then see in how many cases condition A only existed, B only, C only, conditions A&B, condition B&C, condition A&C, conditions A,B,C
, none of the conditions A,B,C.

When we have group them (the setup charts) e.g A&B we can pull up a (setup result charts) and see commonalities in setup result charts (e.g 3 times band width)

Indeed - the 'reverse engineering' bit is what I refer to as looking at past trades.

I do already take snapshots of my trades and keep them in my trade log.

The idea of grouping them together sounds interesting, although I wonder how we define the conditions.

Reply With Quote
     

Old October 24th, 2016, 02:15 PM   #17 (permalink)
The fun is in the numbers
Point Roberts, WA, USA
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: IB and free NT
Broker/Data: IB
Favorite Futures: ES
 
aquarian1's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,198 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 696 given, 970 received


xplorer View Post
Indeed - the 'reverse engineering' bit is what I refer to as looking at past trades.

I do already take snapshots of my trades and keep them in my trade log.

The idea of grouping them together sounds interesting, although I wonder how we define the conditions.

So difficulty in "defining the conditions" (DTC) is why I put in the post about reverse engineering.

----
Here is an example with possible steps:
Step 1. Use a LT time frame chart to find results (Here 30min and two results)
  1. CITD (change in trend Down to up)
  2. RBO (resistance level breakout) - in contrast to a horizontal channel breakout

Step 2. Take a snap of a set bar (e.g 5 min) proceeding the event.
(eg. 2139.75 about 2am for the RBO)

Step 3. If is applies - look for prior invalid cases (marked as A & B)

(with step 2 and 3 you are finding the conditions -here I am doing one full bar above the breakout level and that the bar must be green.)

So this reverse approach gave conditions
A. full bar above BO level
B. bar must be green

----------
Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).



-----next post -- target price
Step 4. Find the resultant move ( High=2149.00 2149-3139.75=9.75pts
and see if you have a way to estimate the target.

Good trading to everyone.
Reply With Quote
     
The following user says Thank You to aquarian1 for this post:
     

Old October 24th, 2016, 02:24 PM   #18 (permalink)
The fun is in the numbers
Point Roberts, WA, USA
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: IB and free NT
Broker/Data: IB
Favorite Futures: ES
 
aquarian1's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,198 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 696 given, 970 received

-- target price

I think it is important to have a way to determine the target price.
--both for trade management and for valid resultant definition (so if we are only looking for RBO that carry enough to be worthwhile we need a definition of worthwhile. (e.g. 6pts) so a breakout that is not at least 6pts we will say is not a breakout.

Here I have done 1/2 the fall (17pts/2= 8.5) added to the BOL of 2139.75 giving a target of 2148.25 which is .50 from the best possible sell price of 2148.75.

Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).

Good trading to everyone.
Reply With Quote
     
The following user says Thank You to aquarian1 for this post:
     

Old October 24th, 2016, 06:11 PM   #19 (permalink)
Market Wizard
London UK
 
Futures Experience: Beginner
Platform: CQG
Favorite Futures: Futures
 
xplorer's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,490 since Sep 2015
Thanks: 2,509 given, 1,863 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary

Thank you aquarian - it's probably the late hour but I can't process it right now. I will definitely look at it tomorrow though.

Reply With Quote
     
The following user says Thank You to xplorer for this post:
     

Old October 26th, 2016, 08:38 PM   #20 (permalink)
The fun is in the numbers
Point Roberts, WA, USA
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: IB and free NT
Broker/Data: IB
Favorite Futures: ES
 
aquarian1's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,198 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 696 given, 970 received


I guess what I was trying to show was an example of finding a setup after the fact.

So looking for a valid breakout - assuming 9pts is valid - pretty scimpy - and going back to look for ways to spot it and see if conditions can be found that eliminate taking "false setups" from the valid. I think it is key though to add the element of measurement.

Without measurement we can't really trade usefully as we don't know our RR and so risk management and money management can't be done.

So another way to categorize setups is by movement
6pointers
12 pointers
etc

time to complete a move could be another way

(Perhaps these are subcategories of types or screens for worthwhile and not worthwhile)

-so for myself I won't take a setup without a 6 pt profit potential

Good trading to everyone.
Reply With Quote
     
The following 2 users say Thank You to aquarian1 for this post:
     

Reply



futures.io > Futures Trading, News, Charts and Platforms > Traders Hideout > Setups categorization

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Upcoming Webinars and Events (4:30PM ET unless noted)
 

NinjaTrader 8: Features and Enhancements, Tips and Tricks

Dec 6
 

Al Brooks: Stop Losing when a Good Trade goes Bad, Correcting Mistakes

Elite only
 

Trading Technologies: Algo Design Lab hands-on

Dec 13
     

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Year With No Setups DionysusToast Traders Hideout 19 January 30th, 2016 12:45 PM
[Other]       FXCM setups timwr Platforms and Indicators 2 March 26th, 2013 11:07 AM
How many SetUps do we use? supermht Traders Hideout 27 February 20th, 2013 08:13 PM
My Setups (rassi) rassi Traders Hideout 20 September 2nd, 2010 01:43 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:44 PM.

Copyright © 2016 by futures.io. All information is for educational use only and is not investment advice.
There is a substantial risk of loss in trading commodity futures, stocks, options and foreign exchange products. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
 
no new posts

Page generated 2016-12-05 in 0.16 seconds with 40 queries on phoenix via your IP 54.158.83.210