Minsk T20 - Banana 1H

[Minsk]

1 - Trade Number: B4 -T1
2 - Pair Name: USD-CHF
3 - Signal Date: 13-6-2022
4 - Signal Chart Time: 8:00
5 - Signal Time Frame: 1H
6 - Signal Type and Number: #1
7 - Buy or Sell: Buy 

8 - D1 Trend:  Up 
9 - H4 Trend:  Up 
10 - H1 Trend:  Up 

11 - Risk Percentage: 1% 

Flowchart questions:
A - Is there an impulse move?
There was friday, and it looks famous. 

B - Is impulse move climactic?
No not climactic.

C - Is there a pause or a pullback?
Yes. It's a long pause. Flat wave 4 from friday 18:00 until monday 8:00.

D - Is the pullback impulsieve?
No.  

12 - Post-Trade Comments: (Feelings, Analysis, What could have been differently, lessons)
Of course when I learned about famous pattern last week, I see them everywhere, or I think I see them. If I am wrong please tell me. 
So I see a famous pattern on USD-CHF. (On H4 it was a seed). Put a PO in just above the box level. TP at 3R. SL was moved to BE and soon after that price went down and hit SL. So a BE result.
Looking back I see that there was a famous on 6-6-2022 as well. This just ended below FibExt 0.75. That was only just short of 3R. SL there would have been 190 pips.
Todays ended at around Fib.Ext 61.8. That was not even close to 3R, 3R was just above FibExt 1. And SL was  245 pips.

SL too wide? yes I think so.
At least I would not have been taken out by SL, it remains to be seen what happens after that of course.

13 - Discipline Score For this Trade: DS1 
13.1- If applicable, what is the Reason for DS0:  

14 - Discipline Score Running Total: 1/1 = 1
 
 
 
 
 


 

Unfortunately NOT the Banana Setup...  Anyway... keep going. 

 

fact, it's not a banana setup. ok, this should be a DS0.

[immy]

1 - Trade Number: B4 -T1
2 - Pair Name: USD-CHF
3 - Signal Date: 13-6-2022
4 - Signal Chart Time: 8:00
5 - Signal Time Frame: 1H
6 - Signal Type and Number: #1
7 - Buy or Sell: Buy 

8 - D1 Trend:  Up 
9 - H4 Trend:  Up 
10 - H1 Trend:  Up 

11 - Risk Percentage: 1% 

Flowchart questions:
A - Is there an impulse move?

Answer = THERE IS NO IMPULSE WAVE for this signal... the impuse wave was followd by a pullback and a weekend in between. For this current siganl THERE WAS NO Impulse Wave. it was a TRADING RANGE 

There was friday, and it looks famous. 

B - Is impulse move climactic?
No not climactic.

C - Is there a pause or a pullback?
Yes. It's a long pause. Flat wave 4 from friday 18:00 until monday 8:00.

D - Is the pullback impulsieve?
No.  

12 - Post-Trade Comments: (Feelings, Analysis, What could have been differently, lessons)
Of course when I learned about famous pattern last week, I see them everywhere, or I think I see them. If I am wrong please tell me. 
So I see a famous pattern on USD-CHF. (On H4 it was a seed). Put a PO in just above the box level. TP at 3R. SL was moved to BE and soon after that price went down and hit SL. So a BE result.
Looking back I see that there was a famous on 6-6-2022 as well. This just ended below FibExt 0.75. That was only just short of 3R. SL there would have been 190 pips.
Todays ended at around Fib.Ext 61.8. That was not even close to 3R, 3R was just above FibExt 1. And SL was  245 pips.

SL too wide? yes I think so.
At least I would not have been taken out by SL, it remains to be seen what happens after that of course.

13 - Discipline Score For this Trade: DS1 
13.1- If applicable, what is the Reason for DS0:  

14 - Discipline Score Running Total: 1/1 = 1
 
 
 
 
 



 

Unfortunately NOT the Banana Setup...  Anyway... keep going. 
 

 

 

[immy]

The BANANA Pattern is made of Minumum of 2 and max of 10 candles.
Let's Assume 
T = Trend Candle 
P = Pause of Pullback Candle. 
R = Range Candle 

These are the patterns you will see. (A model, not exact reality, a model)

TP
TTP
TTTP

TP
TPP
TPPP

TTPP
TTPPP

TTTPP
TTTP
TTTPPP

TTTTPP
TTTTPPP
TTTTTPPP
TTTTTPPPP

These variations might some times have R's in between as well.. 
e.g. 

TTRP
TRP

TTRTP
TTRPP

etc etc.

But in the ideal world, these are the patterns

Now we don't want to see TTTTTTTTTTTTTPPPPPP ... because that is just a TTTPP on the H4...

Does this make sense?

I have updated this lesson might want to check it out again for the TTTPP patterns. https://itradeaims.net/lessons/what-is-a-pullback/

[Minsk]

The BANANA Pattern is made of Minumum of 2 and max of 10 candles.
Let's Assume 
T = Trend Candle 
P = Pause of Pullback Candle. 
R = Range Candle 

These are the patterns you will see. (A model, not exact reality, a model)

TP
TTP
TTTP

TP
TPP
TPPP

TTPP
TTPPP

TTTPP
TTTP
TTTPPP

TTTTPP
TTTTPPP
TTTTTPPP
TTTTTPPPP

These variations might some times have R's in between as well.. 
e.g. 

TTRP
TRP

TTRTP
TTRPP

etc etc.

But in the ideal world, these are the patterns

Now we don't want to see TTTTTTTTTTTTTPPPPPP ... because that is just a TTTPP on the H4...

Does this make sense?

I have updated this lesson might want to check it out again for the TTTPP patterns. https://itradeaims.net/lessons/what-is-a-pullback/

 

Study material, yes I will definitely go over this lesson againThanks for posting this in my journal !
 

[Minsk]

1 - Trade Number: B4 -T3
2 - Pair Name: GBP-JPY
3 - Signal Date: 14-6-2022
4 - Signal Chart Time: 15:00
5 - Signal Time Frame: 1H
6 - Signal Type and Number: #1
7 - Buy or Sell: Sell 

8 - D1 Trend:  Down, or in a very wide trading range going down
9 - H4 Trend:  Down 
10 - H1 Trend:  Down 

11 - Risk Percentage: 1% 

Flowchart questions:
A - Is there an impulse move?
Yes, there  is, 5 candles. 50 EMA on right side.

B - Is impulse move climactic?
No not climactic.

C - Is there a pause or a pullback?
Yes. It's a one legged pullback of 2 candles,  it gives a seed and Banana #1

D - Is the pullback impulsieve?
No.

12 - Post-Trade Comments: (Feelings, Analysis, What could have been differently, lessons)
Not a nice surprise opening laptop this morning. Trade was still running when I went to bed yesterday. Nothing wrong with this one. SL got hit when SL was at BE. 

in 2nd sreenshot the marks of the trade don't show. I don't know why this is. 
entry/SL =  orange line. 
TP = blue line
entry in red candle 
SL hit in blue candle.

13 - Discipline Score For this Trade: DS1 
13.1- If applicable, what is the Reason for DS0:  

14 - Discipline Score Running Total: 2/3 = 0,67
 
 
 

[Minsk]

Today I filtered signals, so no trade yet taken.

USD-CAD: level to the left and the impulse had pinbars I didn't like. 
USD-JPY: climactic impulses twice
USD-CHF: huge climactic impulse

Looking at GBP-USD. It's already late, so maybe it's not smart, considering that spreadhours can mess up the trade.
 

[Minsk]

1 - Trade Number: B4 -T4
2 - Pair Name: USD-JPY
3 - Signal Date: 17-6-2022
4 - Signal Chart Time: 15:00
5 - Signal Time Frame: 1H
6 - Signal Type and Number: Seed
7 - Buy or Sell: Buy 

8 - D1 Trend:  Up
9 - H4 Trend:  Up
10 - H1 Trend:  Up 

11 - Risk Percentage: 1% 

Flowchart questions:
A - Is there an impulse move?
Yes, there  is, and a new higher high,  50 EMA on correct side.

B - Is impulse move climactic?
No not climactic.

C - Is there a pause or a pullback?
Yes. It's a 3 candle pullback.

D - Is the pullback impulsieve?
No, it gives a seed, banana#1, seed.  

12 - Post-Trade Comments: (Feelings, Analysis, What could have been differently, lessons)
This was the 2nd pullback after the separation of 5 EMA and 10EMA. I took this one because the SL was very close, and I thought it might make it to 3R  before markets closed. It didn't, it's still running and SL is at BE. 

Update: trade has finalised and ended BE.
Screenshot: orange line = SL at BE, red line = 3R


13 - Discipline Score For this Trade: DS1 
13.1- If applicable, what is the Reason for DS0:  

14 - Discipline Score Running Total: 3/4 = 0,75
 
 
 
 

[Minsk]

Immy says:

It's harder to stay profitable on 2R targets and 33% win rate...  

That's really our win rate if we eliminate the BE trades. BE trades are like trades that did not happen but they did. They happened but did not affect the bottom line. 

Remind yourself that for a system with 1:3 risk to reward trades the breakeven win percentage is 25%. Whereas for a system with 1:2 Risk to Reward trades the Breakeven win rate is 33%. 

So, for the argument, if we eliminate the BE trades, we are left with 50% winners and 50% losers. 

However, this does not mean that even if you don't employ the SL to BE move, you will still get the same results. The assumption is that  BE trades won't all go and become -1R, that 50% of the BE will hit 2R and the rest will hit -1R. ) Sometimes, eliminating BE will result in a higher win rate other times a lower win rate. 

We can't just say 1:3 Risk to Reward... because we have a third alternative i.e. BE.So our risk to reward is actually 1:0:3 or 1:0:2.  It's either 1R loss to No loss or 1R loss to 3R Win. And since the probability of BE trades is 33% then we can add this to winning trades which would HALVE the winnings R's. 

So in reality our  average risk-to-reward formula goes like this: 

Let
X = Loss Trades
Y = Breakeven Trades  
Z= Profitable Trades (3R)

The formula goes X = (Y+Z) 
Let Z=3R
where X is one unit of risk and it's equal to the sum or average of break-even and Profit Trades. 

Fill the numbers for 10 Trades 

X = 10
Y = 3.3 (33% BE Trades)
3R=3.3  (33% Winners) 

10X = 3.3Z + (3.3 * 3R)
X =  (3.3 + 9.9)/10X = 1.32 R 

So our Average winner is not 3R it's actually 1.32. So our profit factor will be 1.32 

Now do this with 2R 
10x = 3.3Z + (3.3 *2R)
10x = 3.3X + (6.6R)
X = (3.3x+6.6R) / 10
X = 0.99

Question:
Immy what would this win rate model look like if at 1R SL goes to BE and you close 50% of the trade? You have 1R in the pocket and the other half runs risk free, maybe further than 3R   

I know EXACTLY what you mean. 
Unfortunately, it does not work. If it did, I'd love to use it. The only benefit you get in this is a smoother equity curve but in most tests, it failed to give us an edge. So, no. 

This method is the favourite of online forums, but it does not have an edge. The way to make money is to ADD to your winners not just make your winners smaller. If you're adding to your winners and letting them run as much as possible, there are higher chances of winning over the longer term. 

Winners smaller than 3R need a HIGH WIN RATE. The method that works best is either to not close anything or close half at 1R and leave SL at original (-1R) and trail stop loss using a set trailing mechanism e.g. either a moving average or swing levels (box levels). 

1:5 targets are the BEST way forward. I would move SL to BE at +3R and trail by a 2R distance. If the Price goes to 4R, I will get at least 2R. IF it goes to 3R I will sometimes lock 1R but mostly SL to BE. However,  Had I not done this, SL moved on the EU, the other day, I'd have hit $20,000 (10R) but I got stopped out. So there is that. 

Moving SL too tight is the BANE of traders. They think that they are locking in profits but in reality, they are scared and want to protect their winners. They think they are being logical not knowing that despite the apparent look of being logical they are actually being illogical since the statistics show that this stop loss move has NO edge over the longer term.
 
 
 

[immy]

Immy says:

It's harder to stay profitable on 2R targets and 33% win rate...  

That's really our win rate if we eliminate the BE trades. BE trades are like trades that did not happen but they did. They happened but did not affect the bottom line. 

Remind yourself that for a system with 1:3 risk to reward trades the breakeven win percentage is 25%. Whereas for a system with 1:2 Risk to Reward trades the Breakeven win rate is 33%. 

So, for the argument, if we eliminate the BE trades, we are left with 50% winners and 50% losers. 

However, this does not mean that even if you don't employ the SL to BE move, you will still get the same results. The assumption is that  BE trades won't all go and become -1R, that 50% of the BE will hit 2R and the rest will hit -1R. ) Sometimes, eliminating BE will result in a higher win rate other times a lower win rate. 

We can't just say 1:3 Risk to Reward... because we have a third alternative i.e. BE.So our risk to reward is actually 1:0:3 or 1:0:2.  It's either 1R loss to No loss or 1R loss to 3R Win. And since the probability of BE trades is 33% then we can add this to winning trades which would HALVE the winnings R's. 

So in reality our  average risk-to-reward formula goes like this: 

Let
X = Loss Trades
Y = Breakeven Trades  
Z= Profitable Trades (3R)

The formula goes X = (Y+Z) 
Let Z=3R
where X is one unit of risk and it's equal to the sum or average of break-even and Profit Trades. 

Fill the numbers for 10 Trades 

X = 10
Y = 3.3 (33% BE Trades)
3R=3.3  (33% Winners) 

10X = 3.3Z + (3.3 * 3R)
X =  (3.3 + 9.9)/10X = 1.32 R 

So our Average winner is not 3R it's actually 1.32. So our profit factor will be 1.32 

Now do this with 2R 
10x = 3.3Z + (3.3 *2R)
10x = 3.3X + (6.6R)
X = (3.3x+6.6R) / 10
X = 0.99

Question:
Immy what would this win rate model look like if at 1R SL goes to BE and you close 50% of the trade? You have 1R in the pocket and the other half runs risk free, maybe further than 3R   

I know EXACTLY what you mean. 
Unfortunately, it does not work. If it did, I'd love to use it. The only benefit you get in this is a smoother equity curve but in most tests, it failed to give us an edge. So, no. 

This method is the favourite of online forums, but it does not have an edge. The way to make money is to ADD to your winners not just make your winners smaller. If you're adding to your winners and letting them run as much as possible, there are higher chances of winning over the longer term. 

Winners smaller than 3R need a HIGH WIN RATE. The method that works best is either to not close anything or close half at 1R and leave SL at original (-1R) and trail stop loss using a set trailing mechanism e.g. either a moving average or swing levels (box levels). 

1:5 targets are the BEST way forward. I would move SL to BE at +3R and trail by a 2R distance. If the Price goes to 4R, I will get at least 2R. IF it goes to 3R I will sometimes lock 1R but mostly SL to BE. However,  Had I not done this, SL moved on the EU, the other day, I'd have hit $20,000 (10R) but I got stopped out. So there is that. 

Moving SL too tight is the BANE of traders. They think that they are locking in profits but in reality, they are scared and want to protect their winners. They think they are being logical not knowing that despite the apparent look of being logical they are actually being illogical since the statistics show that this stop loss move has NO edge over the longer term.
 
 
 

 

Another Question if someone wanders later on. 

Why was Setup 1 successful with 1:2 Targets? 

Based on the calculations above, this should mean that setup 1 will not be profitable. 

That is because, for setup 1, we don't always wait for Stop Loss to be hit. Our stop loss used to be on the other side of the box, but we closed the trade as soon as the price closed back inside the box or close on the green line. This kept my average loss at 7 points and average winner at 13 points for m1 dax. 

[Minsk]

Immy says:

It's harder to stay profitable on 2R targets and 33% win rate...  

That's really our win rate if we eliminate the BE trades. BE trades are like trades that did not happen but they did. They happened but did not affect the bottom line. 

Remind yourself that for a system with 1:3 risk to reward trades the breakeven win percentage is 25%. Whereas for a system with 1:2 Risk to Reward trades the Breakeven win rate is 33%. 

So, for the argument, if we eliminate the BE trades, we are left with 50% winners and 50% losers. 

However, this does not mean that even if you don't employ the SL to BE move, you will still get the same results. The assumption is that  BE trades won't all go and become -1R, that 50% of the BE will hit 2R and the rest will hit -1R. ) Sometimes, eliminating BE will result in a higher win rate other times a lower win rate. 

We can't just say 1:3 Risk to Reward... because we have a third alternative i.e. BE.So our risk to reward is actually 1:0:3 or 1:0:2.  It's either 1R loss to No loss or 1R loss to 3R Win. And since the probability of BE trades is 33% then we can add this to winning trades which would HALVE the winnings R's. 

So in reality our  average risk-to-reward formula goes like this: 

Let
X = Loss Trades
Y = Breakeven Trades  
Z= Profitable Trades (3R)

The formula goes X = (Y+Z) 
Let Z=3R
where X is one unit of risk and it's equal to the sum or average of break-even and Profit Trades. 

Fill the numbers for 10 Trades 

X = 10
Y = 3.3 (33% BE Trades)
3R=3.3  (33% Winners) 

10X = 3.3Z + (3.3 * 3R)
X =  (3.3 + 9.9)/10X = 1.32 R 

So our Average winner is not 3R it's actually 1.32. So our profit factor will be 1.32 

Now do this with 2R 
10x = 3.3Z + (3.3 *2R)
10x = 3.3X + (6.6R)
X = (3.3x+6.6R) / 10
X = 0.99

Question:
Immy what would this win rate model look like if at 1R SL goes to BE and you close 50% of the trade? You have 1R in the pocket and the other half runs risk free, maybe further than 3R   

I know EXACTLY what you mean. 
Unfortunately, it does not work. If it did, I'd love to use it. The only benefit you get in this is a smoother equity curve but in most tests, it failed to give us an edge. So, no. 

This method is the favourite of online forums, but it does not have an edge. The way to make money is to ADD to your winners not just make your winners smaller. If you're adding to your winners and letting them run as much as possible, there are higher chances of winning over the longer term. 

Winners smaller than 3R need a HIGH WIN RATE. The method that works best is either to not close anything or close half at 1R and leave SL at original (-1R) and trail stop loss using a set trailing mechanism e.g. either a moving average or swing levels (box levels). 

1:5 targets are the BEST way forward. I would move SL to BE at +3R and trail by a 2R distance. If the Price goes to 4R, I will get at least 2R. IF it goes to 3R I will sometimes lock 1R but mostly SL to BE. However,  Had I not done this, SL moved on the EU, the other day, I'd have hit $20,000 (10R) but I got stopped out. So there is that. 

Moving SL too tight is the BANE of traders. They think that they are locking in profits but in reality, they are scared and want to protect their winners. They think they are being logical not knowing that despite the apparent look of being logical they are actually being illogical since the statistics show that this stop loss move has NO edge over the longer term.
 
 
 


 

Another Question if someone wanders later on. 

Why was Setup 1 successful with 1:2 Targets? 

Based on the calculations above, this should mean that setup 1 will not be profitable. 

That is because, for setup 1, we don't always wait for Stop Loss to be hit. Our stop loss used to be on the other side of the box, but we closed the trade as soon as the price closed back inside the box or close on the green line. This kept my average loss at 7 points and average winner at 13 points for m1 dax. 

 

Adding this extra info copied from Trading Room:

Further to the 3R and half off at 1R. I wanted to add that I have done all these tests, numerous times. Actually, we have done 10,000 variations. And that's not just a number.r It actually was 10,000 variations of the set of rules we gave to the quant software. It created 10,00 variations and then eliminated 9995 systems and came back with 5 systems. These algorithms had the lowest drawdowns and the highest profits. And one of them was 1:3, one was 1:5 and the other one, which is the most profitable is no targets but simply letting it run using BOX and adding on when the first entry is BE. 

Moreover, if you move SL to BE at 1R and Close Half look at what you've done to your stats. 

Now, the 33% BE trades are giving you 0.5R winners. but the 33% winners are not giving you 3Rs but rather 1.5R. 

Now apply this to 10 Trades

Average Win/Loss (P) = X+Y+Z

Where X is Risk (loss trades), Y is BE trades and Z is profit trades. Since 33% of trades are winners 3.3 Trades will be winners, 3.3 BE and 3.3 Losers. 

P = (3.3x-1) + (0.5x3.3) + (3.3x1.5 )
P = (-3.3)+   1.65 + 4.95) 
P = 3.3 R Profits  

 

otherwise, 

P = -3.3 + 0 + 9.9
P = 6.6R per 10 Trades