스크립트에서 "binary"에 대해 찾기
VEMA Band_v2 - 'Centre of GravityConcept taken from the MT4 indicator 'Centre of Gravity'except this one doesn't repaint.
Modified / BinaryPro 3 / Permanent Marker
Ema configuration instead of sma & centralised.
Vdub_Tetris_Stoch_V1Vdub_Tetris_Stoch_V1
A combination lower based indicators based on the period channel indicator Vdub_Tetris_V2
Blue line is more reactive fast moving, Red line in more accurate to highs / Lows with divergence.- Still testing
Code title error
Change % = Over Bought / Over Sold
Vdub Tetris_V2
Vdubus BinaryPro 2 /Tops&Bottoms
StochDM
⚡ Zero-Lag 60s Binary Predictor🧠 Core Anti-Lag Philosophy
The indicator's primary goal is to overcome the inherent lag of traditional indicators like the Simple Moving Average (SMA) or standard Relative Strength Index (RSI). It achieves this by focusing on:
Leading Indicators: Using derivatives of price/momentum (like acceleration and jerk—the second and third derivatives of price) to predict turns before the price action is clear.
Instantaneous Metrics: Using short lookback periods (e.g., ta.change(close, 1) or fastLength = 5) and heavily weighting the most recent data (e.g., in instMomentum).
Market Microstructure: Incorporating metrics like Tick Pressure and Order Flow Imbalance (OFI), which attempt to measure internal bar dynamics and buying/selling aggression.
Zero-Lag Techniques: Specifically, the Ehlers Zero Lag EMA, which is mathematically constructed to eliminate phase lag by predicting where the price will be rather than where it was.
COT IndexTHE HIDDEN INTELLIGENCE IN FUTURES MARKETS
What if you could see what the smartest players in the futures markets are doing before the crowd catches on? While retail traders chase momentum indicators and moving averages, obsess over Japanese candlestick patterns, and debate whether the RSI should be set to fourteen or twenty-one periods, institutional players leave footprints in the sand through their mandatory reporting to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. These footprints, published weekly in the Commitment of Traders reports, have been hiding in plain sight for decades, available to anyone with an internet connection, yet remarkably few traders understand how to interpret them correctly. The COT Index indicator transforms this raw institutional positioning data into actionable trading signals, bringing Wall Street intelligence to your trading screen without requiring expensive Bloomberg terminals or insider connections.
The uncomfortable truth is this: Most retail traders operate in a binary world. Long or short. Buy or sell. They apply technical analysis to individual positions, constrained by limited capital that forces them to concentrate risk in single directional bets. Meanwhile, institutional traders operate in an entirely different dimension. They manage portfolios dynamically weighted across multiple markets, adjusting exposure based on evolving market conditions, correlation shifts, and risk assessments that retail traders never see. A hedge fund might be simultaneously long gold, short oil, neutral on copper, and overweight agricultural commodities, with position sizes calibrated to volatility and portfolio Greeks. When they increase gold exposure from five percent to eight percent of portfolio allocation, this rebalancing decision reflects sophisticated analysis of opportunity cost, risk parity, and cross-market dynamics that no individual chart pattern can capture.
This portfolio reweighting activity, multiplied across hundreds of institutional participants, manifests in the aggregate positioning data published weekly by the CFTC. The Commitment of Traders report does not show individual trades or strategies. It shows the collective footprint of how actual commercial hedgers and large speculators have allocated their capital across different markets. When mining companies collectively increase forward gold sales to hedge thirty percent more production than last quarter, they are not reacting to a moving average crossover. They are making strategic allocation decisions based on production forecasts, cost structures, and price expectations derived from operational realities invisible to outside observers. This is portfolio management in action, revealed through positioning data rather than price charts.
If you want to understand how institutional capital actually flows, how sophisticated traders genuinely position themselves across market cycles, the COT report provides a rare window into that hidden world. But understand what you are getting into. This is not a tool for scalpers seeking confirmation of the next five-minute move. This is not an oscillator that flashes oversold at market bottoms with convenient precision. COT analysis operates on a timescale measured in weeks and months, revealing positioning shifts that precede major market turns but offer no precision timing. The data arrives three days stale, published only once per week, capturing strategic positioning rather than tactical entries.
If you need instant gratification, if you trade intraday moves, if you demand mechanical signals with ninety percent accuracy, close this document now. COT analysis rewards patience, position sizing discipline, and tolerance for being early. It punishes impatience, overleveraging, and the expectation that any single indicator can substitute for market understanding.
The premise is deceptively simple. Every Tuesday, large traders in futures markets must report their positions to the CFTC. By Friday afternoon, this data becomes public. Academic research spanning three decades has consistently shown that not all market participants are created equal. Some traders consistently profit while others consistently lose. Some anticipate major turning points while others chase trends into exhaustion. Bessembinder and Chan (1992) demonstrated in their seminal study that commercial hedgers, those with actual exposure to the underlying commodity or financial instrument, possess superior forecasting ability compared to speculators. Their research, published in the Journal of Finance, found statistically significant predictive power in commercial positioning, particularly at extreme levels. This finding challenged the efficient market hypothesis and opened the door to a new approach to market analysis based on positioning rather than price alone.
Think about what this means. Every week, the government publishes a report showing you exactly how the most informed market participants are positioned. Not their opinions. Not their predictions. Their actual money at risk. When agricultural producers collectively hold their largest short hedge in five years, they are not making idle speculation. They are locking in prices for crops they will harvest, informed by private knowledge of weather conditions, soil quality, inventory levels, and demand expectations invisible to outside observers. When energy companies aggressively hedge forward production at current prices, they reveal information about expected supply that no analyst report can capture. This is not technical analysis based on past prices. This is not fundamental analysis based on publicly available data. This is behavioral analysis based on how the smartest money is actually positioned, how institutions allocate capital across portfolios, and how those allocation decisions shift as market conditions evolve.
WHY SOME TRADERS KNOW MORE THAN OTHERS
Building on this foundation, Sanders, Boris and Manfredo (2004) conducted extensive research examining the behaviour patterns of different trader categories. Their work, which analyzed over a decade of COT data across multiple commodity markets, revealed a fascinating dynamic that challenges much of what retail traders are taught. Commercial hedgers consistently positioned themselves against market extremes, buying when speculators were most bearish and selling when speculators reached peak bullishness. The contrarian positioning of commercials was not random noise but rather reflected their superior information about supply and demand fundamentals. Meanwhile, large speculators, primarily hedge funds and commodity trading advisors, exhibited strong trend-following behaviour that often amplified market moves beyond fundamental values. Small traders, the retail participants, consistently entered positions late in trends, frequently near turning points, making them reliable contrary indicators.
Wang (2003) extended this research by demonstrating that the predictive power of commercial positioning varies significantly across different commodity sectors. His analysis of agricultural commodities showed particularly strong forecasting ability, with commercial net positions explaining up to fifteen percent of return variance in subsequent weeks. This finding suggests that the informational advantages of hedgers are most pronounced in markets where physical supply and demand fundamentals dominate, as opposed to purely financial markets where information asymmetries are smaller. When a corn farmer hedges six months of expected harvest, that decision incorporates private observations about rainfall patterns, crop health, pest pressure, and local storage capacity that no distant analyst can match. When an oil refinery hedges crude oil purchases and gasoline sales simultaneously, the spread relationships reveal expectations about refining margins that reflect operational realities invisible in public data.
The theoretical mechanism underlying these empirical patterns relates to information asymmetry and different participant motivations. Commercial hedgers engage in futures markets not for speculative profit but to manage business risks. An agricultural producer selling forward six months of expected harvest is not making a bet on price direction but rather locking in revenue to facilitate financial planning and ensure business viability. However, this hedging activity necessarily incorporates private information about expected supply, inventory levels, weather conditions, and demand trends that the hedger observes through their commercial operations (Irwin and Sanders, 2012). When aggregated across many participants, this private information manifests in collective positioning.
Consider a gold mining company deciding how much forward production to hedge. Management must estimate ore grades, recovery rates, production costs, equipment reliability, labor availability, and dozens of other operational variables that determine whether locking in prices at current levels makes business sense. If the industry collectively hedges more aggressively than usual, it suggests either exceptional production expectations or concern about sustaining current price levels or combination of both. Either way, this positioning reveals information unavailable to speculators analyzing price charts and economic data. The hedger sees the physical reality behind the financial abstraction.
Large speculators operate under entirely different incentives and constraints. Commodity Trading Advisors managing billions in assets typically employ systematic, trend-following strategies that respond to price momentum rather than fundamental supply and demand. When crude oil rallies from sixty dollars to seventy dollars per barrel, these systems generate buy signals. As the rally continues to eighty dollars, position sizes increase. The strategy works brilliantly during sustained trends but becomes a liability at reversals. By the time oil reaches ninety dollars, trend-following funds are maximally long, having accumulated positions progressively throughout the rally. At this point, they represent not smart money anticipating further gains but rather crowded money vulnerable to reversal. Sanders, Boris and Manfredo (2004) documented this pattern across multiple energy markets, showing that extreme speculator positioning typically marked late-stage trend exhaustion rather than early-stage trend development.
Small traders, the retail participants who fall below reporting thresholds, display the weakest forecasting ability. Wang (2003) found that small trader positioning exhibited negative correlation with subsequent returns, meaning their aggregate positioning served as a reliable contrary indicator. The explanation combines several factors. Retail traders often lack the capital reserves to weather normal market volatility, leading to premature exits from positions that would eventually prove profitable. They tend to receive information through slower channels, entering trends after mainstream media coverage when institutional participants are preparing to exit. Perhaps most importantly, they trade with emotion, buying into euphoria and selling into panic at precisely the wrong times.
At major turning points, the three groups often position opposite each other with commercials extremely bearish, large speculators extremely bullish, and small traders piling into longs at the last moment. These high-divergence environments frequently precede increased volatility and trend reversals. The insiders with business exposure quietly exit as the momentum traders hit maximum capacity and retail enthusiasm peaks. Within weeks, the reversal begins, and positions unwind in the opposite sequence.
FROM RAW DATA TO ACTIONABLE SIGNALS
The COT Index indicator operationalizes these academic findings into a practical trading tool accessible through TradingView. At its core, the indicator normalizes net positioning data onto a zero to one hundred scale, creating what we call the COT Index. This normalization is critical because absolute position sizes vary dramatically across different futures contracts and over time. A commercial trader holding fifty thousand contracts net long in crude oil might be extremely bullish by historical standards, or it might be quite neutral depending on the context of total market size and historical ranges. Raw position numbers mean nothing without context. The COT Index solves this problem by calculating where current positioning stands relative to its range over a specified lookback period, typically two hundred fifty-two weeks or approximately five years of weekly data.
The mathematical transformation follows the methodology originally popularized by legendary trader Larry Williams, though the underlying concept appears in statistical normalization techniques across many fields. For any given trader category, we calculate the highest and lowest net position values over the lookback period, establishing the historical range for that specific market and trader group. Current positioning is then expressed as a percentage of this range, where zero represents the most bearish positioning ever seen in the lookback window and one hundred represents the most bullish extreme. A reading of fifty indicates positioning exactly in the middle of the historical range, suggesting neither extreme optimism nor pessimism relative to recent history (Williams and Noseworthy, 2009).
This index-based approach allows for meaningful comparison across different markets and time periods, overcoming the scaling problems inherent in analyzing raw position data. A commercial index reading of eighty-five in gold carries the same interpretive meaning as an eighty-five reading in wheat or crude oil, even though the absolute position sizes differ by orders of magnitude. This standardization enables systematic analysis across entire futures portfolios rather than requiring market-specific expertise for each contract.
The lookback period selection involves a fundamental tradeoff between responsiveness and stability. Shorter lookback periods, perhaps one hundred twenty-six weeks or approximately two and a half years, make the index more sensitive to recent positioning changes. However, it also increases noise and produces more false signals. Longer lookback periods, perhaps five hundred weeks or approximately ten years, create smoother readings that filter short-term noise but become slower to recognize regime changes. The indicator settings allow users to adjust this parameter based on their trading timeframe, risk tolerance, and market characteristics.
UNDERSTANDING CFTC DATA STRUCTURES
The indicator supports both Legacy and Disaggregated COT report formats, reflecting the evolution of CFTC reporting standards over decades of market development. Legacy reports categorize market participants into three broad groups: commercial traders (hedgers with underlying business exposure), non-commercial traders (large speculators seeking profit without commercial interest), and non-reportable traders (small speculators below reporting thresholds). Each category brings distinct motivations and information advantages to the market (CFTC, 2020).
The Disaggregated reports, introduced in September 2009 for physical commodity markets, provide finer granularity by splitting participants into five categories (CFTC, 2009). Producer and merchant positions capture those actually producing, processing, or merchandising the physical commodity. Swap dealers represent financial intermediaries facilitating derivative transactions for clients. Managed money includes commodity trading advisors and hedge funds executing systematic or discretionary strategies. Other reportables encompasses diverse participants not fitting the main categories. Small traders remain as the fifth group, representing retail participation.
This enhanced categorization reveals nuances invisible in Legacy reports, particularly distinguishing between different types of institutional capital and their distinct behavioural patterns. The indicator automatically detects which report type is appropriate for each futures contract and adjusts the display accordingly.
Importantly, Disaggregated reports exist only for physical commodity futures. Agricultural commodities like corn, wheat, and soybeans have Disaggregated reports because clear producer, merchant, and swap dealer categories exist. Energy commodities like crude oil and natural gas similarly have well-defined commercial hedger categories. Metals including gold, silver, and copper also receive Disaggregated treatment (CFTC, 2009). However, financial futures such as equity index futures, Treasury bond futures, and currency futures remain available only in Legacy format. The CFTC has indicated no plans to extend Disaggregated reporting to financial futures due to different market structures and participant categories in these instruments (CFTC, 2020).
THE BEHAVIORAL FOUNDATION
Understanding which trader perspective to follow requires appreciation of their distinct trading styles, success rates, and psychological profiles. Commercial hedgers exhibit anticyclical behaviour rooted in their fundamental knowledge and business imperatives. When agricultural producers hedge forward sales during harvest season, they are not speculating on price direction but rather locking in revenue for crops they will harvest. Their business requires converting volatile commodity exposure into predictable cash flows to facilitate planning and ensure survival through difficult periods. Yet their aggregate positioning reveals valuable information because these hedging decisions incorporate private information about supply conditions, inventory levels, weather observations, and demand expectations that hedgers observe through their commercial operations (Bessembinder and Chan, 1992).
Consider a practical example from energy markets. Major oil companies continuously hedge portions of forward production based on price levels, operational costs, and financial planning needs. When crude oil trades at ninety dollars per barrel, they might aggressively hedge the next twelve months of production, locking in prices that provide comfortable profit margins above their extraction costs. This hedging appears as short positioning in COT reports. If oil rallies further to one hundred dollars, they hedge even more aggressively, viewing these prices as exceptional opportunities to secure revenue. Their short positioning grows increasingly extreme. To an outside observer watching only price charts, the rally suggests bullishness. But the commercial positioning reveals that the actual producers of oil find these prices attractive enough to lock in years of sales, suggesting skepticism about sustaining even higher levels. When the eventual reversal occurs and oil declines back to eighty dollars, the commercials who hedged at ninety and one hundred dollars profit while speculators who chased the rally suffer losses.
Large speculators or managed money traders operate under entirely different incentives and constraints. Their systematic, momentum-driven strategies mean they amplify existing trends rather than anticipate reversals. Trend-following systems, the most common approach among large speculators, by definition require confirmation of trend through price momentum before entering positions (Sanders, Boris and Manfredo, 2004). When crude oil rallies from sixty dollars to eighty dollars per barrel over several months, trend-following algorithms generate buy signals based on moving average crossovers, breakouts, and other momentum indicators. As the rally continues, position sizes increase according to the systematic rules.
However, this approach becomes a liability at turning points. By the time oil reaches ninety dollars after a sustained rally, trend-following funds are maximally long, having accumulated positions progressively throughout the move. At this point, their positioning does not predict continued strength. Rather, it often marks late-stage trend exhaustion. The psychological and mechanical explanation is straightforward. Trend followers by definition chase price momentum, entering positions after trends establish rather than anticipating them. Eventually, they become fully invested just as the trend nears completion, leaving no incremental buying power to sustain the rally. When the first signs of reversal appear, systematic stops trigger, creating a cascade of selling that accelerates the downturn.
Small traders consistently display the weakest track record across academic studies. Wang (2003) found that small trader positioning exhibited negative correlation with subsequent returns in his analysis across multiple commodity markets. This result means that whatever small traders collectively do, the opposite typically proves profitable. The explanation for small trader underperformance combines several factors documented in behavioral finance literature. Retail traders often lack the capital reserves to weather normal market volatility, leading to premature exits from positions that would eventually prove profitable. They tend to receive information through slower channels, learning about commodity trends through mainstream media coverage that arrives after institutional participants have already positioned. Perhaps most importantly, retail traders are more susceptible to emotional decision-making, buying into euphoria and selling into panic at precisely the wrong times (Tharp, 2008).
SETTINGS, THRESHOLDS, AND SIGNAL GENERATION
The practical implementation of the COT Index requires understanding several key features and settings that users can adjust to match their trading style, timeframe, and risk tolerance. The lookback period determines the time window for calculating historical ranges. The default setting of two hundred fifty-two bars represents approximately one year on daily charts or five years on weekly charts, balancing responsiveness with stability. Conservative traders seeking only the most extreme, highest-probability signals might extend the lookback to five hundred bars or more. Aggressive traders seeking earlier entry and willing to accept more false positives might reduce it to one hundred twenty-six bars or even less for shorter-term applications.
The bullish and bearish thresholds define signal generation levels. Default settings of eighty and twenty respectively reflect academic research suggesting meaningful information content at these extremes. Readings above eighty indicate positioning in the top quintile of the historical range, representing genuine extremes rather than temporary fluctuations. Conversely, readings below twenty occupy the bottom quintile, indicating unusually bearish positioning (Briese, 2008).
However, traders must recognize that appropriate thresholds vary by market, trader category, and personal risk tolerance. Some futures markets exhibit wider positioning swings than others due to seasonal patterns, volatility characteristics, or participant behavior. Conservative traders seeking high-probability setups with fewer signals might raise thresholds to eighty-five and fifteen. Aggressive traders willing to accept more false positives for earlier entry could lower them to seventy-five and twenty-five.
The key is maintaining meaningful differentiation between bullish, neutral, and bearish zones. The default settings of eighty and twenty create a clear three-zone structure. Readings from zero to twenty represent bearish territory where the selected trader group holds unusually bearish positions. Readings from twenty to eighty represent neutral territory where positioning falls within normal historical ranges. Readings from eighty to one hundred represent bullish territory where the selected trader group holds unusually bullish positions.
The trading perspective selection determines which participant group the indicator follows, fundamentally shaping interpretation and signal meaning. For counter-trend traders seeking reversal opportunities, monitoring commercial positioning makes intuitive sense based on the academic research discussed earlier. When commercials reach extreme bearish readings below twenty, indicating unprecedented short positioning relative to recent history, they are effectively betting against the crowd. Given their informational advantages demonstrated by Bessembinder and Chan (1992), this contrarian stance often precedes major bottoms.
Trend followers might instead monitor large speculator positioning, but with inverted logic compared to commercials. When managed money reaches extreme bullish readings above eighty, the trend may be exhausting rather than accelerating. This seeming paradox reflects their late-cycle participation documented by Sanders, Boris and Manfredo (2004). Sophisticated traders thus use speculator extremes as fade signals, entering positions opposite to speculator consensus.
Small trader monitoring serves primarily as a contrary indicator for all trading styles. Extreme small trader bullishness above seventy-five or eighty typically warns of retail FOMO at market tops. Extreme small trader bearishness below twenty or twenty-five often marks capitulation bottoms where the last weak hands have sold.
VISUALIZATION AND USER INTERFACE
The visual design incorporates multiple elements working together to facilitate decision-making and maintain situational awareness during active trading. The primary COT Index line plots in bold with adjustable line width, defaulting to two pixels for clear visibility against busy price charts. An optional glow effect, controlled by a simple toggle, adds additional visual prominence through multiple plot layers with progressively increasing transparency and width.
A twenty-one period exponential moving average overlays the index line, providing trend context for positioning changes. When the index crosses above its moving average, it signals accelerating bullish sentiment among the selected trader group regardless of whether absolute positioning is extreme. Conversely, when the index crosses below its moving average, it signals deteriorating sentiment and potentially the beginning of a reversal in positioning trends.
The EMA provides a dynamic reference line for assessing positioning momentum. When the index trades far above its EMA, positioning is not only extreme in absolute terms but also building with momentum. When the index trades far below its EMA, positioning is contracting or reversing, which may indicate weakening conviction even if absolute levels remain elevated.
The data table positioned at the top right of the chart displays eleven metrics for each trader category, transforming the indicator from a simple index calculation into an analytical dashboard providing multidimensional market intelligence. Beyond the COT Index itself, users can monitor positioning extremity, which measures how unusual current levels are compared to historical norms using statistical techniques. The extremity metric clarifies whether a reading represents the ninety-fifth or ninety-ninth percentile, with values above two standard deviations indicating genuinely exceptional positioning.
Market power quantifies each group's influence on total open interest. This metric expresses each trader category's net position as a percentage of total market open interest. A commercial entity holding forty percent of total open interest commands significantly more influence than one holding five percent, making their positioning signals more meaningful.
Momentum and rate of change metrics reveal whether positions are building or contracting, providing early warning of potential regime shifts. Position velocity measures the rate of change in positioning changes, effectively a second derivative providing even earlier insight into inflection points.
Sentiment divergence highlights disagreements between commercial and speculative positioning. This metric calculates the absolute difference between normalized commercial and large speculator index values. Wang (2003) found that these high-divergence environments frequently preceded increased volatility and reversals.
The table also displays concentration metrics when available, showing how positioning is distributed among the largest handful of traders in each category. High concentration indicates a few dominant players controlling most of the positioning, while low concentration suggests broad-based participation across many traders.
THE ALERT SYSTEM AND MONITORING
The alert system, comprising five distinct alert conditions, enables systematic monitoring of dozens of futures markets without constant screen watching. The bullish and bearish COT signal alerts trigger when the index crosses user-defined thresholds, indicating the selected trader group has reached extreme positioning worthy of attention. These alerts fire in real-time as new weekly COT data publishes, typically Friday afternoon following the Tuesday measurement date.
Extreme positioning alerts fire at ninety and ten index levels, representing the top and bottom ten percent of the historical range, warning of particularly stretched readings that historically precede reversals with high probability. When commercials reach a COT Index reading below ten, they are expressing their most bearish stance in the entire lookback period.
The data staleness alert notifies users when COT reports have not updated for more than ten days, preventing reliance on outdated information for trading decisions. Government shutdowns or federal holidays can interrupt the normal Friday publication schedule. Using stale signals while believing them current creates dangerous false confidence.
The indicator's watermark information display positioned in the bottom right corner provides essential context at a glance. This persistent display shows the symbol and timeframe, the COT report date timestamp, days since last update, and the current signal state. A trader analyzing a potential short entry in crude oil can glance at the watermark to instantly confirm positioning context without interrupting analysis flow.
LIMITATIONS AND REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
Practical application requires understanding both the indicator's considerable strengths and inherent limitations. COT data inherently lags price action by three days, as Tuesday positions are not published until Friday afternoon. This delay means the indicator cannot catch rapid intraday reversals or respond to surprise news events. Traders using the COT Index for timing entries must accept this latency and focus on swing trading and position trading timeframes where three-day lags matter less than in day trading or scalping.
The weekly publication schedule similarly makes the indicator unsuitable for short-term trading strategies requiring immediate feedback. The COT Index works best for traders operating on weekly or longer timeframes, where positioning shifts measured in weeks and months align with trading horizon.
Extreme COT readings can persist far longer than typical technical indicators suggest, testing the patience and capital reserves of traders attempting to fade them. When crude oil enters a sustained bull market driven by genuine supply disruptions, commercial hedgers may maintain bearish positioning for many months as prices grind higher. A commercial COT Index reading of fifteen indicating extreme bearishness might persist for three months while prices continue rallying before finally reversing. Traders without sufficient capital and risk tolerance to weather such drawdowns will exit prematurely, precisely when the signal is about to work (Irwin and Sanders, 2012).
Position sizing discipline becomes paramount when implementing COT-based strategies. Rather than risking large percentages of capital on individual signals, successful COT traders typically allocate modest position sizes across multiple signals, allowing some to take time to mature while others work more quickly.
The indicator also cannot overcome fundamental regime changes that alter the structural drivers of markets. If gold enters a true secular bull market driven by monetary debasement, commercial hedgers may remain persistently bearish as mining companies sell forward years of production at what they perceive as favorable prices. Their positioning indicates valuation concerns from a production cost perspective, but cannot stop prices from rising if investment demand overwhelms physical supply-demand balance.
Similarly, structural changes in market participation can alter the meaning of positioning extremes. The growth of commodity index investing in the two thousands brought massive passive long-only capital into futures markets, fundamentally changing typical positioning ranges. Traders relying on COT signals without recognizing this regime change would have generated numerous false bearish signals during the commodity supercycle from 2003 to 2008.
The research foundation supporting COT analysis derives primarily from commodity markets where the commercial hedger information advantage is most pronounced. Studies specifically examining financial futures like equity indices and bonds show weaker but still present effects. Traders should calibrate expectations accordingly, recognizing that COT analysis likely works better for crude oil, natural gas, corn, and wheat than for the S&P 500, Treasury bonds, or currency futures.
Another important limitation involves the reporting threshold structure. Not all market participants appear in COT data, only those holding positions above specified minimums. In markets dominated by a few large players, concentration metrics become critical for proper interpretation. A single large trader accounting for thirty percent of commercial positioning might skew the entire category if their individual circumstances are idiosyncratic rather than representative.
GOLD FUTURES DURING A HYPOTHETICAL MARKET CYCLE
Consider a practical example using gold futures during a hypothetical but realistic market scenario that illustrates how the COT Index indicator guides trading decisions through a complete market cycle. Suppose gold has rallied from fifteen hundred to nineteen hundred dollars per ounce over six months, driven by inflation concerns following aggressive monetary expansion, geopolitical uncertainty, and sustained buying by Asian central banks for reserve diversification.
Large speculators, operating primarily trend-following strategies, have accumulated increasingly bullish positions throughout this rally. Their COT Index has climbed progressively from forty-five to eighty-five. The table display shows that large speculators now hold net long positions representing thirty-two percent of total open interest, their highest in four years. Momentum indicators show positive readings, indicating positions are still building though at a decelerating rate. Position velocity has turned negative, suggesting the pace of position building is slowing.
Meanwhile, commercial hedgers have responded to the rally by aggressively selling forward production and inventory. Their COT Index has moved inversely to price, declining from fifty-five to twenty. This bearish commercial positioning represents mining companies locking in forward sales at prices they view as attractive relative to production costs. The table shows commercials now hold net short positions representing twenty-nine percent of total open interest, their most bearish stance in five years. Concentration metrics indicate this positioning is broadly distributed across many commercial entities, suggesting the bearish stance reflects collective industry view rather than idiosyncratic positioning by a single firm.
Small traders, attracted by mainstream financial media coverage of gold's impressive rally, have recently piled into long positions. Their COT Index has jumped from forty-five to seventy-eight as retail investors chase the trend. Television financial networks feature frequent segments on gold with bullish guests. Internet forums and social media show surging retail interest. This retail enthusiasm historically marks late-stage trend development rather than early opportunity.
The COT Index indicator, configured to monitor commercial positioning from a contrarian perspective, displays a clear bearish signal given the extreme commercial short positioning. The table displays multiple confirming metrics: positioning extremity shows commercials at the ninety-sixth percentile of bearishness, market power indicates they control twenty-nine percent of open interest, and sentiment divergence registers sixty-five, indicating massive disagreement between commercial hedgers and large speculators. This divergence, the highest in three years, places the market in the historically high-risk category for reversals.
The interpretation requires nuance and consideration of context beyond just COT data. Commercials are not necessarily predicting an imminent crash. Rather, they are hedging business operations at what they collectively view as favorable price levels. However, the data reveals they have sold unusually large quantities of forward production, suggesting either exceptional production expectations for the year ahead or concern about sustaining current price levels or combination of both. Combined with extreme speculator positioning indicating a crowded long trade, and small trader enthusiasm confirming retail FOMO, the confluence suggests elevated reversal risk even if the precise timing remains uncertain.
A prudent trader analyzing this situation might take several actions based on COT Index signals. Existing long positions could be tightened with closer stop losses. Profit-taking on a portion of long exposure could lock in gains while maintaining some participation. Some traders might initiate modest short positions as portfolio hedges, sizing them appropriately for the inherent uncertainty in timing reversals. Others might simply move to the sidelines, avoiding new long entries until positioning normalizes.
The key lesson from case study analysis is that COT signals provide probabilistic edges rather than deterministic predictions. They work over many observations by identifying higher-probability configurations, not by generating perfect calls on individual trades. A fifty-five percent win rate with proper risk management produces substantial profits over time, yet still means forty-five percent of signals will be premature or wrong. Traders must embrace this probabilistic reality rather than seeking the impossible goal of perfect accuracy.
INTEGRATION WITH TRADING SYSTEMS
Integration with existing trading systems represents a natural and powerful use case for COT analysis, adding a positioning dimension to price-based technical approaches or fundamental analytical frameworks. Few traders rely exclusively on a single indicator or methodology. Rather, they build systems that synthesize multiple information sources, with each component addressing different aspects of market behavior.
Trend followers might use COT extremes as regime filters, modifying position sizing or avoiding new trend entries when positioning reaches levels historically associated with reversals. Consider a classic trend-following system based on moving average crossovers and momentum breakouts. Integration of COT analysis adds nuance. When large speculator positioning exceeds ninety or commercial positioning falls below ten, the regime filter recognizes elevated reversal risk. The system might reduce position sizing by fifty percent for new signals during these high-risk periods (Kaufman, 2013).
Mean reversion traders might require COT signal confluence before fading extended moves. When crude oil becomes technically overbought and large speculators show extreme long positioning above eighty-five, both signals confirm. If only technical indicators show extremes while positioning remains neutral, the potential short signal is rejected, avoiding fades of trends with underlying institutional support (Kaufman, 2013).
Discretionary traders can monitor the indicator as a continuous awareness tool, informing bias and position sizing without dictating mechanical entries and exits. A discretionary trader might notice commercial positioning shifting from neutral to progressively more bullish over several months. This trend informs growing positive bias even without triggering mechanical signals.
Multi-timeframe analysis represents another powerful integration approach. A trader might use daily charts for trade execution and timing while monitoring weekly COT positioning for strategic context. When both timeframes align, highest-probability opportunities emerge.
Portfolio construction for futures traders can incorporate COT signals as an additional selection criterion. Markets showing strong technical setups AND favorable COT positioning receive highest allocations. Markets with strong technicals but neutral or unfavorable positioning receive reduced allocations.
ADVANCED METRICS AND INTERPRETATION
The metrics table transforms simple positioning data into multidimensional market intelligence. Position extremity, calculated as the absolute deviation from the historical mean normalized by standard deviation, helps identify truly unusual readings versus routine fluctuations. A reading above two standard deviations indicates ninety-fifth percentile or higher extremity. Above three standard deviations indicates ninety-ninth percentile or higher, genuinely rare positioning that historically precedes major events with high probability.
Market power, expressed as a percentage of total open interest, reveals whose positioning matters most from a mechanical market impact perspective. Consider two scenarios in gold futures. In scenario one, commercials show a COT Index reading of fifteen while their market power metric shows they hold net shorts representing thirty-five percent of open interest. This is a high-confidence bearish signal. In scenario two, commercials also show a reading of fifteen, but market power shows only eight percent. While positioning is extreme relative to this category's normal range, their limited market share means less mechanical influence on price.
The rate of change and momentum metrics highlight whether positions are accelerating or decelerating, often providing earlier warnings than absolute levels alone. A COT Index reading of seventy-five with rapidly building momentum suggests continued movement toward extremes. Conversely, a reading of eighty-five with decelerating or negative momentum indicates the positioning trend is exhausting.
Position velocity measures the rate of change in positioning changes, effectively a second derivative. When velocity shifts from positive to negative, it indicates that while positioning may still be growing, the pace of growth is slowing. This deceleration often precedes actual reversal in positioning direction by several weeks.
Sentiment divergence calculates the absolute difference between normalized commercial and large speculator index values. When commercials show extreme bearish positioning at twenty while large speculators show extreme bullish positioning at eighty, the divergence reaches sixty, representing near-maximum disagreement. Wang (2003) found that these high-divergence environments frequently preceded increased volatility and reversals. The mechanism is intuitive. Extreme divergence indicates the informed hedgers and momentum-following speculators have positioned opposite each other with conviction. One group will prove correct and profit while the other proves incorrect and suffers losses. The resolution of this disagreement through price movement often involves volatility.
The table also displays concentration metrics when available. High concentration indicates a few dominant players controlling most of the positioning within a category, while low concentration suggests broad-based participation. Broad-based positioning more reliably reflects collective market intelligence and industry consensus. If mining companies globally all independently decide to hedge aggressively at similar price levels, it suggests genuine industry-wide view about price valuations rather than circumstances specific to one firm.
DATA QUALITY AND RELIABILITY
The CFTC has maintained COT reporting in various forms since the nineteen twenties, providing nearly a century of positioning data across multiple market cycles. However, data quality and reporting standards have evolved substantially over this long period. Modern electronic reporting implemented in the late nineteen nineties and early two thousands significantly improved accuracy and timeliness compared to earlier paper-based systems.
Traders should understand that COT reports capture positions as of Tuesday's close each week. Markets remain open three additional days before publication on Friday afternoon, meaning the reported data is three days stale when received. During periods of rapid market movement or major news events, this lag can be significant. The indicator addresses this limitation by including timestamp information and staleness warnings.
The three-day lag creates particular challenges during extreme volatility episodes. Flash crashes, surprise central bank interventions, geopolitical shocks, and other high-impact events can completely transform market positioning within hours. Traders must exercise judgment about whether reported positioning remains relevant given intervening events.
Reporting thresholds also mean that not all market participants appear in disaggregated COT data. Traders holding positions below specified minimums aggregate into the non-reportable or small trader category. This aggregation affects different markets differently. In highly liquid contracts like crude oil with thousands of participants, reportable traders might represent seventy to eighty percent of open interest. In thinly traded contracts with only dozens of active participants, a few large reportable positions might represent ninety-five percent of open interest.
Another data quality consideration involves trader classification into categories. The CFTC assigns traders to commercial or non-commercial categories based on reported business purpose and activities. However, this process is not perfect. Some entities engage in both commercial and speculative activities, creating ambiguity about proper classification. The transition to Disaggregated reports attempted to address some of these ambiguities by creating more granular categories.
COMPARISON WITH ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
Several alternative approaches to COT analysis exist in the trading community beyond the normalization methodology employed by this indicator. Some analysts focus on absolute position changes week-over-week rather than index-based normalization. This approach calculates the change in net positioning from one week to the next. The emphasis falls on momentum in positioning changes rather than absolute levels relative to history. This method potentially identifies regime shifts earlier but sacrifices cross-market comparability (Briese, 2008).
Other practitioners employ more complex statistical transformations including percentile rankings, z-score standardization, and machine learning classification algorithms. Ruan and Zhang (2018) demonstrated that machine learning models applied to COT data could achieve modest improvements in forecasting accuracy compared to simple threshold-based approaches. However, these gains came at the cost of interpretability and implementation complexity.
The COT Index indicator intentionally employs a relatively straightforward normalization methodology for several important reasons. First, transparency enhances user understanding and trust. Traders can verify calculations manually and develop intuitive feel for what different readings mean. Second, academic research suggests that most of the predictive power in COT data comes from extreme positioning levels rather than subtle patterns requiring complex statistical methods to detect. Third, robust methods that work consistently across many markets and time periods tend to be simpler rather than more complex, reducing the risk of overfitting to historical data. Fourth, the complexity costs of implementation matter for retail traders without programming teams or computational infrastructure.
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF COT TRADING
Trading based on COT data requires psychological fortitude that differs from momentum-based approaches. Contrarian positioning signals inherently mean betting against prevailing market sentiment and recent price action. When commercials reach extreme bearish positioning, prices have typically been rising, sometimes for extended periods. The price chart looks bullish, momentum indicators confirm strength, moving averages align positively. The COT signal says bet against all of this. This psychological difficulty explains why COT analysis remains underutilized relative to trend-following methods.
Human psychology strongly predisposes us toward extrapolation and recency bias. When prices rally for months, our pattern-matching brains naturally expect continued rally. The recent price action dominates our perception, overwhelming rational analysis about positioning extremes and historical probabilities. The COT signal asking us to sell requires overriding these powerful psychological impulses.
The indicator design attempts to support the required psychological discipline through several features. Clear threshold markers and signal states reduce ambiguity about when signals trigger. When the commercial index crosses below twenty, the signal is explicit and unambiguous. The background shifts to red, the signal label displays bearish, and alerts fire. This explicitness helps traders act on signals rather than waiting for additional confirmation that may never arrive.
The metrics table provides analytical justification for contrarian positions, helping traders maintain conviction during inevitable periods of adverse price movement. When a trader enters short positions based on extreme commercial bearish positioning but prices continue rallying for several weeks, doubt naturally emerges. The table display provides reassurance. Commercial positioning remains extremely bearish. Divergence remains high. The positioning thesis remains intact even though price action has not yet confirmed.
Alert functionality ensures traders do not miss signals due to inattention while also not requiring constant monitoring that can lead to emotional decision-making. Setting alerts for COT extremes enables a healthier relationship with markets. When meaningful signals occur, alerts notify them. They can then calmly assess the situation and execute planned responses.
However, no indicator design can completely overcome the psychological difficulty of contrarian trading. Some traders simply cannot maintain short positions while prices rally. For these traders, COT analysis might be better employed as an exit signal for long positions rather than an entry signal for shorts.
Ultimately, successful COT trading requires developing comfort with probabilistic thinking rather than certainty-seeking. The signals work over many observations by identifying higher-probability configurations, not by generating perfect calls on individual trades. A fifty-five or sixty percent win rate with proper risk management produces substantial profits over years, yet still means forty to forty-five percent of signals will be premature or wrong. COT analysis provides genuine edge, but edge means probability advantage, not elimination of losing trades.
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES AND CONTINUOUS LEARNING
The indicator provides extensive built-in educational resources through its documentation, detailed tooltips, and transparent calculations. However, mastering COT analysis requires study beyond any single tool or resource. Several excellent resources provide valuable extensions of the concepts covered in this guide.
Books and practitioner-focused monographs offer accessible entry points. Stephen Briese published The Commitments of Traders Bible in two thousand eight, offering detailed breakdowns of how different markets and trader categories behave (Briese, 2008). Briese's work stands out for its empirical focus and market-specific insights. Jack Schwager includes discussion of COT analysis within the broader context of market behavior in his book Market Sense and Nonsense (Schwager, 2012). Perry Kaufman's Trading Systems and Methods represents perhaps the most rigorous practitioner-focused text on systematic trading approaches including COT analysis (Kaufman, 2013).
Academic journal articles provide the rigorous statistical foundation underlying COT analysis. The Journal of Futures Markets regularly publishes research on positioning data and its predictive properties. Bessembinder and Chan's earlier work on systematic risk, hedging pressure, and risk premiums in futures markets provides theoretical foundation (Bessembinder, 1992). Chang's examination of speculator returns provides historical context (Chang, 1985). Irwin and Sanders provide essential skeptical perspective in their two thousand twelve article (Irwin and Sanders, 2012). Wang's two thousand three article provides one of the most empirical analyses of COT data across multiple commodity markets (Wang, 2003).
Online resources extend beyond academic and book-length treatments. The CFTC website provides free access to current and historical COT reports in multiple formats. The explanatory materials section offers detailed documentation of report construction, category definitions, and historical methodology changes. Traders serious about COT analysis should read these official CFTC documents to understand exactly what they are analyzing.
Commercial COT data services such as Barchart provide enhanced visualization and analysis tools beyond raw CFTC data. TradingView's educational materials, published scripts library, and user community provide additional resources for exploring different approaches to COT analysis.
The key to mastering COT analysis lies not in finding a single definitive source but rather in building understanding through multiple perspectives and information sources. Academic research provides rigorous empirical foundation. Practitioner-focused books offer practical implementation insights. Direct engagement with data through systematic backtesting develops intuition about how positioning dynamics manifest across different market conditions.
SYNTHESIZING KNOWLEDGE INTO PRACTICE
The COT Index indicator represents the synthesis of academic research, trading experience, and software engineering into a practical tool accessible to retail traders equipped with nothing more than a TradingView account and willingness to learn. What once required expensive data subscriptions, custom programming capabilities, statistical software, and institutional resources now appears as a straightforward indicator requiring only basic parameter selection and modest study to understand. This democratization of institutional-grade analysis tools represents a broader trend in financial markets over recent decades.
Yet technology and data access alone provide no edge without understanding and discipline. Markets remain relentlessly efficient at eliminating edges that become too widely known and mechanically exploited. The COT Index indicator succeeds only when users invest time learning the underlying concepts, understand the limitations and probability distributions involved, and integrate signals thoughtfully into trading plans rather than applying them mechanically.
The academic research demonstrates conclusively that institutional positioning contains genuine information about future price movements, particularly at extremes where commercial hedgers are maximally bearish or bullish relative to historical norms. This informational content is neither perfect nor deterministic but rather probabilistic, providing edge over many observations through identification of higher-probability configurations. Bessembinder and Chan's finding that commercial positioning explained modest but significant variance in future returns illustrates this probabilistic nature perfectly (Bessembinder and Chan, 1992). The effect is real and statistically significant, yet it explains perhaps ten to fifteen percent of return variance rather than most variance. Much of price movement remains unpredictable even with positioning intelligence.
The practical implication is that COT analysis works best as one component of a trading system rather than a standalone oracle. It provides the positioning dimension, revealing where the smart money has positioned and where the crowd has followed, but price action analysis provides the timing dimension. Fundamental analysis provides the catalyst dimension. Risk management provides the survival dimension. These components work together synergistically.
The indicator's design philosophy prioritizes transparency and education over black-box complexity, empowering traders to understand exactly what they are analyzing and why. Every calculation is documented and user-adjustable. The threshold markers, background coloring, tables, and clear signal states provide multiple reinforcing channels for conveying the same information.
This educational approach reflects a conviction that sustainable trading success comes from genuine understanding rather than mechanical system-following. Traders who understand why commercial positioning matters, how different trader categories behave, what positioning extremes signify, and where signals fit within probability distributions can adapt when market conditions change. Traders mechanically following black-box signals without comprehension abandon systems after normal losing streaks.
The research foundation supporting COT analysis comes primarily from commodity markets where commercial hedger informational advantages are most pronounced. Agricultural producers hedging crops know more about supply conditions than distant speculators. Energy companies hedging production know more about operating costs than financial traders. Metals miners hedging output know more about ore grades than index funds. Financial futures markets show weaker but still present effects.
The journey from reading this documentation to profitable trading based on COT analysis involves several stages that cannot be rushed. Initial reading and basic understanding represents the first stage. Historical study represents the second stage, reviewing past market cycles to observe how positioning extremes preceded major turning points. Paper trading or small-size real trading represents the third stage to experience the psychological challenges. Refinement based on results and personal psychology represents the fourth stage.
Markets will continue evolving. New participant categories will emerge. Regulatory structures will change. Technology will advance. Yet the fundamental dynamics driving COT analysis, that different market participants have different information, different motivations, and different forecasting abilities that manifest in their positioning, will persist as long as futures markets exist. While specific thresholds or optimal parameters may shift over time, the core logic remains sound and adaptable.
The trader equipped with this indicator, understanding of the theory and evidence behind COT analysis, realistic expectations about probability rather than certainty, discipline to maintain positions through adverse volatility, and patience to allow signals time to develop possesses genuine edge in markets. The edge is not enormous, markets cannot allow large persistent inefficiencies without arbitraging them away, but it is real, measurable, and exploitable by those willing to invest in learning and disciplined application.
REFERENCES
Bessembinder, H. (1992) Systematic risk, hedging pressure, and risk premiums in futures markets, Review of Financial Studies, 5(4), pp. 637-667.
Bessembinder, H. and Chan, K. (1992) The profitability of technical trading rules in the Asian stock markets, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 3(2-3), pp. 257-284.
Briese, S. (2008) The Commitments of Traders Bible: How to Profit from Insider Market Intelligence. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Chang, E.C. (1985) Returns to speculators and the theory of normal backwardation, Journal of Finance, 40(1), pp. 193-208.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) (2009) Explanatory Notes: Disaggregated Commitments of Traders Report. Available at: www.cftc.gov (Accessed: 15 January 2025).
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) (2020) Commitments of Traders: About the Report. Available at: www.cftc.gov (Accessed: 15 January 2025).
Irwin, S.H. and Sanders, D.R. (2012) Testing the Masters Hypothesis in commodity futures markets, Energy Economics, 34(1), pp. 256-269.
Kaufman, P.J. (2013) Trading Systems and Methods. 5th edn. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Ruan, Y. and Zhang, Y. (2018) Forecasting commodity futures prices using machine learning: Evidence from the Chinese commodity futures market, Applied Economics Letters, 25(12), pp. 845-849.
Sanders, D.R., Boris, K. and Manfredo, M. (2004) Hedgers, funds, and small speculators in the energy futures markets: an analysis of the CFTC's Commitments of Traders reports, Energy Economics, 26(3), pp. 425-445.
Schwager, J.D. (2012) Market Sense and Nonsense: How the Markets Really Work and How They Don't. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Tharp, V.K. (2008) Super Trader: Make Consistent Profits in Good and Bad Markets. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wang, C. (2003) The behavior and performance of major types of futures traders, Journal of Futures Markets, 23(1), pp. 1-31.
Williams, L.R. and Noseworthy, M. (2009) The Right Stock at the Right Time: Prospering in the Coming Good Years. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
FURTHER READING
For traders seeking to deepen their understanding of COT analysis and futures market positioning beyond this documentation, the following resources provide valuable extensions:
Academic Journal Articles:
Fishe, R.P.H. and Smith, A. (2012) Do speculators drive commodity prices away from supply and demand fundamentals?, Journal of Commodity Markets, 1(1), pp. 1-16.
Haigh, M.S., Hranaiova, J. and Overdahl, J.A. (2007) Hedge funds, volatility, and liquidity provision in energy futures markets, Journal of Alternative Investments, 9(4), pp. 10-38.
Kocagil, A.E. (1997) Does futures speculation stabilize spot prices? Evidence from metals markets, Applied Financial Economics, 7(1), pp. 115-125.
Sanders, D.R. and Irwin, S.H. (2011) The impact of index funds in commodity futures markets: A systems approach, Journal of Alternative Investments, 14(1), pp. 40-49.
Books and Practitioner Resources:
Murphy, J.J. (1999) Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets: A Guide to Trading Methods and Applications. New York: New York Institute of Finance.
Pring, M.J. (2002) Technical Analysis Explained: The Investor's Guide to Spotting Investment Trends and Turning Points. 4th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Federal Reserve and Research Institution Publications:
Federal Reserve Banks regularly publish working papers examining commodity markets, futures positioning, and price discovery mechanisms. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City maintain active research programs in this area.
Online Resources:
The CFTC website provides free access to current and historical COT reports, explanatory materials, and regulatory documentation.
Barchart offers enhanced COT data visualization and screening tools.
TradingView's community library contains numerous published scripts and educational materials exploring different approaches to positioning analysis.
Curved Radius Supertrend [BOSWaves]Curved Radius Supertrend — Adaptive Parabolic Trend Framework with Dynamic Acceleration Geometry
Overview
The Curved Radius Supertrend introduces an evolution of the classic Supertrend indicator - engineered with a dynamic curvature engine that replaces rigid ATR bands with parabolic, radius-based motion. Traditional Supertrend systems rely on static band displacement, reacting linearly to volatility and often lagging behind emerging price acceleration. The Curved Radius Supertend model redefines this by integrating controlled acceleration and curvature geometry, allowing the trend bands to adapt fluidly to both velocity and duration of price movement.
The result is a smoother, more organic trend flow that visually captures the momentum curve of price action - not just its direction. Instead of sharp pivots or whipsaws, traders experience a structurally curved trajectory that mirrors real market inertia. This makes it particularly effective for identifying sustained directional phases, detecting early trend rotations, and filtering out noise that plagues standard Supertrend methodologies.
Unlike conventional band-following systems, the Curved Radius framework is time-reactive and velocity-aware, providing a nuanced signal structure that blends geometric precision with volatility sensitivity.
Theoretical Foundation
The Curved Radius Supertrend draws from the intersection of mathematical curvature dynamics and adaptive volatility processing. Standard Supertrend algorithms extend from Average True Range (ATR) envelopes - a linear measure of volatility that moves proportionally with price deviation. However, markets do not expand or contract linearly. Trend velocity typically accelerates and decelerates in nonlinear arcs, forming natural parabolas across price phases.
By embedding a radius-based acceleration function, the indicator models this natural behavior. The core variable, radiusStrength, controls how aggressively curvature accelerates over time. Instead of simply following price distance, the band now evolves according to temporal acceleration - each bar contributes incremental velocity, bending the trend line into a radius-like curve.
This structural design allows the indicator to anticipate rather than just respond to price action, capturing momentum transitions as curved accelerations rather than binary flips. In practice, this eliminates the stutter effect typical of standard Supertrends and replaces it with fluid directional motion that better reflects actual trend geometry.
How It Works
The Curved Radius Supertrend is constructed through a multi-stage process designed to balance price responsiveness with geometric stability:
1. Baseline Supertrend Core
The framework begins with a standard ATR-derived upper and lower band calculation. These define the volatility envelope that constrains potential price zones. Directional bias is determined through crossover logic - prices above the lower band confirm an uptrend, while prices below the upper band confirm a downtrend.
2. Curvature Acceleration Engine
Once a trend direction is established, a curvature engine is activated. This system uses radiusStrength as a coefficient to simulate acceleration per bar, incrementally increasing velocity over time. The result is a parabolic displacement from the anchor price (the price level at trend change), creating a curved motion path that dynamically widens or tightens as the trend matures.
Mathematically, this acceleration behaves quadratically - each new bar compounds the previous velocity, forming an exponential rate of displacement that resembles curved inertia.
3. Adaptive Smoothing Layer
After the radius curve is applied, a smoothing stage (defined by the smoothness parameter) uses a simple moving average to regulate curve noise. This ensures visual coherence without sacrificing responsiveness, producing flowing arcs rather than jagged band steps.
4. Directional Visualization and Outer Envelope
Directional state (bullish or bearish) dictates both the color gradient and band displacement. An outer envelope is plotted one ATR beyond the curved band, creating a layered trend visualization that shows the extent of volatility expansion.
5. Signal Events and Alerts
Each directional transition triggers a 'BUY' or 'SELL' signal, clearly labeling phase shifts in market structure. Alerts are built in for automation and backtesting.
Interpretation
The Curved Radius Supertrend reframes how traders visualize and confirm trends. Instead of simply plotting a trailing stop, it maps the dynamic curvature of trend development.
Uptrend Phases : The band curves upward with increasing acceleration, reflecting the market’s growing directional velocity. As curvature steepens, conviction strengthens.
Downtrend Phases : The band bends downward in a mirrored acceleration pattern, indicating sustained bearish momentum.
Trend Change Points : When the direction flips and a new anchor point forms, the curve resets - providing a clean, early visual confirmation of structural reversal.
Smoothing and Radius Interplay : A lower radius strength produces a tighter, more reactive curve ideal for scalping or short timeframes. Higher values generate broad, sweeping arcs optimized for swing or positional analysis.
Visually, this curvature system translates market inertia into shape - revealing how trends bend, accelerate, and ultimately exhaust.
Strategy Integration
The Curved Radius Supertrend is versatile enough to integrate seamlessly into multiple trading frameworks:
Trend Following : Use BUY/SELL flips to identify emerging directional bias. Strong curvature continuation confirms sustained momentum.
Momentum Entry Filtering : Combine with oscillators or volume tools to filter entries only when the curve slope accelerates (high momentum conditions).
Pullback and Re-entry Timing : The smooth curvature of the radius band allows traders to identify shallow retracements without premature exits. The band acts as a dynamic, self-adjusting support/resistance arc.
Volatility Compression and Expansion : Flattening curvature indicates volatility compression - a potential pre-breakout zone. Rapid re-steepening signals expansion and directional conviction.
Stop Placement Framework : The curved band can serve as a volatility-adjusted trailing stop. Because the curve reflects acceleration, it adapts naturally to market rhythm - widening during momentum surges and tightening during stagnation.
Technical Implementation Details
Curved Radius Engine : Parabolic acceleration algorithm that applies quadratic velocity based on bar count and radiusStrength.
Anchor Logic : Resets curvature at each trend change, establishing a new reference base for directional acceleration.
Smoothing Layer : SMA-based curve smoothing for noise reduction.
Outer Envelope : ATR-derived band offset visualizing volatility extension.
Directional Coloring : Candle and band coloration tied to current trend state.
Signal Engine : Built-in BUY/SELL markers and alert conditions for automation or script integration.
Optimal Application Parameters
Timeframe Guidance :
1-5 min (Scalping) : 0.08–0.12 radius strength, minimal smoothing for rapid responsiveness.
15 min : 0.12–0.15 radius strength for intraday trends.
1H : 0.15–0.18 radius strength for structured short-term swing setups.
4H : 0.18–0.22 radius strength for macro-trend shaping.
Daily : 0.20–0.25 radius strength for broad directional curves.
Weekly : 0.25–0.30 radius strength for smooth macro-level cycles.
The suggested radius strength ranges provide general structural guidance. Optimal values may vary across assets and volatility regimes, and should be refined through empirical testing to account for instrument-specific behavior and prevailing market conditions.
Asset Guidance :
Cryptocurrency : Higher radius and multiplier values to stabilize high-volatility environments.
Forex : Midrange settings (0.12-0.18) for clean curvature transitions.
Equities : Balanced curvature for trending sectors or momentum rotation setups.
Indices/Futures : Moderate radius values (0.15-0.22) to capture cyclical macro swings.
Performance Characteristics
High Effectiveness :
Trending environments with directional expansion.
Markets exhibiting clean momentum arcs and low structural noise.
Reduced Effectiveness :
Range-bound or low-volatility conditions with repeated false flips.
Ultra-short-term timeframes (<1m) where curvature acceleration overshoots.
Integration Guidelines
Confluence Framework : Combine with structure tools (order blocks, BOS, liquidity zones) for entry validation.
Risk Management : Trail stops along the curved band rather than fixed points to align with adaptive market geometry.
Multi-Timeframe Confirmation : Use higher timeframe curvature as a trend filter and lower timeframe curvature for execution timing.
Curve Compression Awareness : Treat flattening arcs as potential exhaustion zones - ideal for scaling out or reducing exposure.
Disclaimer
The Curved Radius Supertrend is a geometric trend model designed for professional traders and analysts. It is not a predictive system or a guaranteed profit method. Its performance depends on correct parameter calibration and sound risk management. BOSWaves recommends using it as part of a comprehensive analytical framework, incorporating volume, liquidity, and structural context to validate directional signals.
[boitl] Trendfilter🧭 Trend Filter – Curve View (1D / 1H + M15 Check)
A multi-timeframe trend filter that blends daily, hourly, and 15-minute data into a smooth, color-coded curve displayed in a separate panel.
It visualizes both trend direction and strength while accounting for overextension, providing a reliable “context indicator” for entries and filters.
🔍 Concept
The indicator evaluates three timeframes:
1D (Daily) → SMA200 for long-term trend bias
1H (Hourly) → EMA50 for medium-term confirmation
15M (Intraday) → EMA20 + ATR to detect overextension or mean reversion zones
It computes a continuous trend score between −1 and +1:
+1 → Strong bullish alignment (D1 & H1 both up)
−1 → Strong bearish alignment (D1 & H1 both down)
≈ 0 → Neutral, conflicting, or overextended conditions
The score is smoothed and normalized for a clean visual curve —
green for bullish, red for bearish, with dynamic transparency based on strength.
⚙️ Logic Overview
Timeframe Indicator Purpose
1D SMA200 Long-term trend direction
1H EMA50 Medium-term confirmation
15M EMA20 + ATR Overextension control
Alignment between D1 and H1 defines clear trend bias
Conflicts between them reduce the trend score
M15 overextension (price far from EMA20) softens the signal further
The result is a responsive trend-strength oscillator, ideal for multi-timeframe setups.
🧩 Use Cases
As a trend filter for strategies (e.g. allow entries only if score > 0.3 or < −0.3)
As a visual confirmation of higher-timeframe direction
To avoid trades during conflict or exhaustion
💡 Visualization
Single curve (area plot):
Green = bullish bias
Red = bearish bias
Transparency increases with weaker trend
Background colors:
🟠 Orange → D1/H1 conflict
🔴 Light red → M15 overextension active
Optional: binary alignment line (+1 / 0 / −1) for simplified display
⚙️ Parameters
Proximity to EMA20 (M15) = X×ATR → defines “near” condition
Overextension threshold = X×ATR → sets exhaustion boundary
EMA smoothing → reduces noise for a smoother score
Toggle overextension impact on/off
Simplified Percentile ClusteringSimplified Percentile Clustering (SPC) is a clustering system for trend regime analysis.
Instead of relying on heavy iterative algorithms such as k-means, SPC takes a deterministic approach: it uses percentiles and running averages to form cluster centers directly from the data, producing smooth, interpretable market state segmentation that updates live with every bar.
Most clustering algorithms are designed for offline datasets, they require recomputation, multiple iterations, and fixed sample sizes.
SPC borrows from both statistical normalization and distance-based clustering theory , but simplifies them. Percentiles ensure that cluster centers are resistant to outliers , while the running mean provides a stable mid-point reference.
Unlike iterative methods, SPC’s centers evolve smoothly with time, ideal for charts that must update in real time without sudden reclassification noise.
SPC provides a simple yet powerful clustering heuristic that:
Runs continuously in a charting environment,
Remains interpretable and reproducible,
And allows traders to see how close the current market state is to transitioning between regimes.
Clustering by Percentiles
Traditional clustering methods find centers through iteration. SPC defines them deterministically using three simple statistics within a moving window:
Lower percentile (p_low) → captures the lower basin of feature values.
Upper percentile (p_high) → captures the upper basin.
Mean (mid) → represents the central tendency.
From these, SPC computes stable “centers”:
// K = 2 → two regimes (e.g., bullish / bearish)
=
// K = 3 → adds a neutral zone
=
These centers move gradually with the market, forming live regime boundaries without ever needing convergence steps.
Two clusters capture directional bias; three clusters add a neutral ‘range’ state.
Multi-Feature Fusion
While SPC can cluster a single feature such as RSI, CCI, Fisher Transform, DMI, Z-Score, or the price-to-MA ratio (MAR), its real strength lies in feature fusion. Each feature adds a unique lens to the clustering system. By toggling features on or off, traders can test how each dimension contributes to the regime structure.
In “Clusters” mode, SPC measures how far the current bar is from each cluster center across all enabled features, averages these distances, and assigns the bar to the nearest combined center. This effectively creates a multi-dimensional regime map , where each feature contributes equally to defining the overall market state.
The fusion distance is computed as:
dist := (rsi_d * on_off(use_rsi) + cci_d * on_off(use_cci) + fis_d * on_off(use_fis) + dmi_d * on_off(use_dmi) + zsc_d * on_off(use_zsc) + mar_d * on_off(use_mar)) / (on_off(use_rsi) + on_off(use_cci) + on_off(use_fis) + on_off(use_dmi) + on_off(use_zsc) + on_off(use_mar))
Because each feature can be standardized (Z-Score), the distances remain comparable across different scales.
Fusion mode combines multiple standardized features into a single smooth regime signal.
Visualizing Proximity - The Transition Gradient
Most indicators show binary or discrete conditions (e.g., bullish/bearish). SPC goes further, it quantifies how close the current value is to flipping into the next cluster.
It measures the distances to the two nearest cluster centers and interpolates between them:
rel_pos = min_dist / (min_dist + second_min_dist)
real_clust = cluster_val + (second_val - cluster_val) * rel_pos
This real_clust output forms a continuous line that moves smoothly between clusters:
Near 0.0 → firmly within the current regime
Around 0.5 → balanced between clusters (transition zone)
Near 1.0 → about to flip into the next regime
Smooth interpolation reveals when the market is close to a regime change.
How to Tune the Parameters
SPC includes intuitive parameters to adapt sensitivity and stability:
K Clusters (2–3): Defines the number of regimes. K = 2 for trend/range distinction, K = 3 for trend/neutral transitions.
Lookback: Determines the number of past bars used for percentile and mean calculations. Higher = smoother, more stable clusters. Lower = faster reaction to new trends.
Lower / Upper Percentiles: Define what counts as “low” and “high” states. Adjust to widen or tighten cluster ranges.
Shorter lookbacks react quickly to shifts; longer lookbacks smooth the clusters.
Visual Interpretation
In “Clusters” mode, SPC plots:
A colored histogram for each cluster (red, orange, green depending on K)
Horizontal guide lines separating cluster levels
Smooth proximity transitions between states
Each bar’s color also changes based on its assigned cluster, allowing quick recognition of when the market transitions between regimes.
Cluster bands visualize regime structure and transitions at a glance.
Practical Applications
Identify market regimes (bullish, neutral, bearish) in real time
Detect early transition phases before a trend flip occurs
Fuse multiple indicators into a single consistent signal
Engineer interpretable features for machine-learning research
Build adaptive filters or hybrid signals based on cluster proximity
Final Notes
Simplified Percentile Clustering (SPC) provides a balance between mathematical rigor and visual intuition. It replaces complex iterative algorithms with a clear, deterministic logic that any trader can understand, and yet retains the multidimensional insight of a fusion-based clustering system.
Use SPC to study how different indicators align, how regimes evolve, and how transitions emerge in real time. It’s not about predicting; it’s about seeing the structure of the market unfold.
Disclaimer
This indicator is intended for educational and analytical use.
It does not generate buy or sell signals.
Historical regime transitions are not indicative of future performance.
Always validate insights with independent analysis before making trading decisions.
Momentum-Based Fair Value Gaps [BackQuant]Momentum-Based Fair Value Gaps
A precision tool that detects Fair Value Gaps and color-codes each zone by momentum, so you can quickly tell which imbalances matter, which are likely to fill, and which may power continuation.
What is a Fair Value Gap
A Fair Value Gap is a 3-candle price imbalance that forms when the middle candle expands fast enough that it leaves a void between candle 1 and candle 3.
Bullish FVG : low > high . This marks a bullish imbalance left beneath price.
Bearish FVG : high < low . This marks a bearish imbalance left above price.
These zones often act as magnets for mean reversion or as fuel for trend continuation when price respects the gap boundary and runs.
Why add momentum
Not all gaps are equal. This script measures momentum with RSI on your chosen source and paints each FVG with a momentum heatmap. Strong-momentum gaps are more likely to hold or propel continuation. Weak-momentum gaps are more likely to fill.
Core Features
Auto FVG Detection with size filters in percent of price.
Momentum Heatmap per gap using RSI with smoothing. Multiple palettes: Gradient, Discrete, Simple, and scientific schemes like Viridis, Plasma, Inferno, Magma, Cividis, Turbo, Jet, plus Red-Green and Blue-White-Red.
Bull and Bear Modes with independent toggles.
Extend Until Filled : keep drawing live to the right until price fully fills the gap.
Auto Remove Filled for a clean chart.
Optional Labels showing the smoothed RSI value stored at the gap’s birth.
RSI-based Filters : only accept bullish gaps when RSI is oversold and bearish gaps when RSI is overbought.
Performance Controls : cap how many FVGs to keep on chart.
Alerts : new bullish or bearish FVG, filled FVG, and extreme RSI FVGs.
How it works
Source for Momentum : choose Returns, Close, or Volume.
Returns computes percent change over a short lookback to focus on impulse quality.
RSI and Smoothing : RSI length and a small SMA smooth the signal to stabilize the color coding.
Gap Scan : each bar checks for a 3-candle bullish or bearish imbalance that also clears your minimum size filter in percent of price.
Heatmap Color : the gap is painted at creation with a color from your palette based on the smoothed RSI value, preserving the momentum signature that formed it.
Lifecycle : if Extend Unfilled is on, the zone projects forward until price fully trades through the far edge. If Auto Remove is on, a filled gap is deleted immediately.
How to use it
Scan for structure : turn on both bullish and bearish FVGs. Start with a moderate Min FVG Size percent to reduce noise. You will see stacked clusters in trends and scattered singletons in chop.
Read the colors : brighter or stronger palette values imply stronger momentum at gap formation. Weakly colored gaps are lower conviction.
Decide bias : bullish FVGs below price suggest demand footprints. Bearish FVGs above price suggest supply footprints. Use the heatmap and RSI value to rank importance.
Choose your playbook :
Mean reversion : target partial or full fills of opposing FVGs that were created on weak momentum or that sit against higher timeframe context.
Trend continuation : look for price to respect the near edge of a strong-momentum FVG, then break away in the direction of the original impulse.
Manage risk : in continuation ideas, invalidation often sits beyond the opposite edge of the active FVG. In reversion ideas, invalidation sits beyond the gap that should attract price.
Two trade playbooks
Continuation - Buy the hold of a bullish FVG
Context uptrend.
A bullish FVG prints with strong RSI color.
Price revisits the top of the gap, holds, and rotates up. Enter on hold or first higher low inside or just above the gap.
Invalidation: below the gap bottom. Targets: prior swing, measured move, or next LV area.
Reversion - Fade a weak bearish FVG toward fill
Context range or fading trend.
A bearish FVG prints with weak RSI color near a completed move.
Price fails to accelerate lower and rotates back into the gap.
Enter toward mid-gap with confirmation.
Invalidation: above gap top. Target: opposite edge for a full fill, or the gap midline for partials.
Key settings
Max FVG Display : memory cap to keep charts fast. Try 30 to 60 on intraday.
Min FVG Size % : sets a quality floor. Start near 0.20 to 0.50 on liquid markets.
RSI Length and Smooth : 14 and 3 are balanced. Increase length for higher timeframe stability.
RSI Source :
Returns : most sensitive to true momentum bursts
Close : traditional.
Volume : uses raw volume impulses to judge footprint strength.
Filter by RSI Extremes : tighten rules so only the most stretched gaps print as signals.
Heatmap Style and Palette : pick a palette with good contrast for your background. Gradient for continuous feel, Discrete for quick zoning, Simple for binary, Palette for scientific schemes.
Extend Unfilled - Auto Remove : choose live projection and cleanup behavior to match your workflow.
Reading the chart
Bullish zones sit beneath price. Respect and hold of the upper boundary suggests demand. Strong green or warm palette tones indicate impulse quality.
Bearish zones sit above price. Respect and hold of the lower boundary suggests supply. Strong red or cool palette tones indicate impulse quality.
Stacking : multiple same-direction gaps stacked in a trend create ladders. Ladders often act as stepping stones for continuation.
Overlapping : opposing gaps overlapping in a small region usually mark a battle zone. Expect chop until one side is absorbed.
Workflow tips
Map higher timeframe trend first. Use lower timeframe FVGs for entries aligned with the higher timeframe bias.
Increase Min FVG Size percent and RSI length for noisy symbols.
Use labels when learning to correlate the RSI numbers with your palette colors.
Combine with VWAP or moving averages for confluence at FVG edges.
If you see repeated fills and refills of the same zone, treat that area as fair value and avoid chasing.
Alerts included
New Bullish FVG
New Bearish FVG
Bullish FVG Filled
Bearish FVG Filled
Extreme Oversold FVG - bullish
Extreme Overbought FVG - bearish
Practical defaults
RSI Length 14, Smooth 3, Source Returns.
Min FVG Size 0.25 percent on liquid majors.
Heatmap Style Gradient, Palette Viridis or Turbo for contrast.
Extend Unfilled on, Auto Remove on for a clean live map.
Notes
This tool does not predict the future. It maps imbalances and momentum so you can frame trades with clearer context, cleaner invalidation, and better ranking of which gaps matter. Use it with risk control and in combination with your broader process.
Aggregated Scores Oscillator [Alpha Extract]A sophisticated risk-adjusted performance measurement system that combines Omega Ratio and Sortino Ratio methodologies to create a comprehensive market assessment oscillator. Utilizing advanced statistical band calculations with expanding and rolling window analysis, this indicator delivers institutional-grade overbought/oversold detection based on risk-adjusted returns rather than traditional price movements. The system's dual-ratio aggregation approach provides superior signal accuracy by incorporating both upside potential and downside risk metrics with dynamic threshold adaptation for varying market conditions.
🔶 Advanced Statistical Framework
Implements dual statistical methodologies using expanding and rolling window calculations to create adaptive threshold bands that evolve with market conditions. The system calculates cumulative statistics alongside rolling averages to provide both historical context and current market regime sensitivity with configurable window parameters for optimal performance across timeframes.
🔶 Dual Ratio Integration System
Combines Omega Ratio analysis measuring excess returns versus deficit returns with Sortino Ratio calculations focusing on downside deviation for comprehensive risk-adjusted performance assessment. The system applies configurable smoothing to both ratios before aggregation, ensuring stable signal generation while maintaining sensitivity to regime changes.
// Omega Ratio Calculation
Excess_Return = sum((Daily_Return > Target_Return ? Daily_Return - Target_Return : 0), Period)
Deficit_Return = sum((Daily_Return < Target_Return ? Target_Return - Daily_Return : 0), Period)
Omega_Ratio = Deficit_Return ≠ 0 ? (Excess_Return / Deficit_Return) : na
// Sortino Ratio Framework
Downside_Deviation = sqrt(sum((Daily_Return < Target_Return ? (Daily_Return - Target_Return)² : 0), Period) / Period)
Sortino_Ratio = (Mean_Return / Downside_Deviation) * sqrt(Annualization_Factor)
// Aggregated Score
Aggregated_Score = SMA(Omega_Ratio, Omega_SMA) + SMA(Sortino_Ratio, Sortino_SMA)
🔶 Dynamic Band Calculation Engine
Features sophisticated threshold determination using both expanding historical statistics and rolling window analysis to create adaptive overbought/oversold levels. The system incorporates configurable multipliers and sensitivity adjustments to optimize signal timing across varying market volatility conditions with automatic band convergence logic.
🔶 Signal Generation Framework
Generates overbought conditions when aggregated score exceeds adjusted upper threshold and oversold conditions below lower threshold, with neutral zone identification for range-bound markets. The system provides clear binary signal states with background zone highlighting and dynamic oscillator coloring for intuitive market condition assessment.
🔶 Enhanced Visual Architecture
Provides modern dark theme visualization with neon color scheme, dynamic oscillator line coloring based on signal states, and gradient band fills for comprehensive market condition visualization. The system includes zero-line reference, statistical band plots, and background zone highlighting with configurable transparency levels.
snapshot
🔶 Risk-Adjusted Performance Analysis
Utilizes target return parameters for customizable risk assessment baselines, enabling traders to evaluate performance relative to specific return objectives. The system's focus on downside deviation through Sortino analysis provides superior risk-adjusted signals compared to traditional volatility-based oscillators that treat upside and downside movements equally.
🔶 Multi-Timeframe Adaptability
Features configurable calculation periods and rolling windows to optimize performance across various timeframes from intraday to long-term analysis. The system's statistical foundation ensures consistent signal quality regardless of timeframe selection while maintaining sensitivity to market regime changes through adaptive band calculations.
🔶 Performance Optimization Framework
Implements efficient statistical calculations with optimized variable management and configurable smoothing parameters to balance responsiveness with signal stability. The system includes automatic band adjustment mechanisms and rolling window management for consistent performance across extended analysis periods.
This indicator delivers sophisticated risk-adjusted market analysis by combining proven statistical ratios in a unified oscillator framework. Unlike traditional overbought/oversold indicators that rely solely on price movements, the ASO incorporates risk-adjusted performance metrics to identify genuine market extremes based on return quality rather than price volatility alone. The system's adaptive statistical bands and dual-ratio methodology provide institutional-grade signal accuracy suitable for systematic trading approaches across cryptocurrency, forex, and equity markets with comprehensive visual feedback and configurable risk parameters for optimal strategy integration.
Quantile-Based Adaptive Detection🙏🏻 Dedicated to John Tukey. He invented the boxplot, and I finalized it.
QBAD (Quantile-Based Adaptive Detection) is ‘the’ adaptive (also optionally weighted = ready for timeseries) boxplot with more senseful fences. Instead of hardcoded multipliers for outer fences, I base em on a set of quantile-based asymmetry metrics (you can view it as an ‘algorithmic’ counter part of central & standardized moments). So outer bands are Not hardcoded, not optimized, not cross-validated etc, simply calculated at O(nlogn).
You can use it literally everywhere in any context with any continuous data, in any task that requires statistical control, novelty || outlier detection, without worrying and doubting the sense in arbitrary chosen thresholds. Obviously, given the robust nature of quantiles, it would fit best the cases where data has problems.
The thresholds are:
Basis: the model of the data (median in our case);
Deviations: represent typical spread around basis, together form “value” in general sense;
Extensions: estimate data’s extremums via combination of quantile-based asymmetry metrics without relying on actual blunt min and max, together form “range” / ”frame”. Datapoints outside the frame/range are novelties or outliers;
Limits: based also on quantile asymmetry metrics, estimate the bounds within which values can ‘ever’ emerge given the current data generating process stays the same, together form “field”. Datapoints outside the field are very rare, happen when a significant change/structural break happens in current data-generating process, or when a corrupt datapoint emerges.
…
The first part of the post is for locals xd, the second is for the wanderers/wizards/creators/:
First part:
In terms of markets, mostly u gotta worry about dem instruments that represent crypto & FX assets: it’s either activity hence data sources there are decentralized, or data is fishy.
For a higher algocomplexity cost O(nlong), unlike MBAD that is 0(n), this thing (a control system in fact) works better with ishy data (contaminated with wrong values, incomplete, missing values etc). Read about the “ breakdown point of an estimator ” if you wanna understand it.
Even with good data, in cases when you have multiple instruments that represent the same asset, e.g. CL and BRN futures, and for some reason you wanna skip constructing a proper index of em (while you should), QBAD should be better put on each instrument individually.
Another reason to use this algo-based rather than math-based tool, might be in cases when data quality is all good, but the actual causal processes that generate the data are a bit inconsistent and/or possess ‘increased’ activity in a way. SO in high volatility periods, this tool should provide better.
In terms of built-ins you got 2 weightings: by sequence and by inferred volume delta. The former should be ‘On’ all the time when you work with timeseries, unless for a reason you want to consciously turn it off for a reason. The latter, you gotta keep it ‘On’ unless you apply the tool on another dataset that ain’t got that particular additional dimension.
Ain’t matter the way you gonna use it, moving windows, cumulative windows with or without anchors, that’s your freedom of will, but some stuff stays the same:
Basis and deviations are “value” levels. From process control perspective, if you pls, it makes sense to Not only fade or push based on these levels, but to also do nothing when things are ambiguous and/or don’t require your intervention
Extensions and limits are extreme levels. Here you either push or fade, doing nothing is not an option, these are decisive points in all the meanings
Another important thing, lately I started to see one kind of trend here on tradingview as well and in general in near quant sources, of applying averages, percentiles etc ‘on’ other stationary metrics, so called “indicators”. And I mean not for diagnostic or development reasons, for decision making xd
This is not the evil crime ofc, but hillbilly af, cuz the metrics are stationary it means that you can model em, fit a distribution, like do smth sharper. Worst case you have Bayesian statistics armed with high density intervals and equal tail intervals, and even some others. All this stuff is not hard to do, if u aint’t doing it, it’s on you.
So what I’m saying is it makes sense to apply QBAD on returns ‘of your strategy’, on volume delta, but Not on other metrics that already do calculations over their own moving windows.
...
Second part:
Looks like some finna start to have lil suspicions, that ‘maybe’ after all math entities in reality are more like blueprints, while actual representations are physical/mechanical/algorithmic. Std & centralized moments is a math entity that represents location, scale & asymmetry info, and we can use it no problem, when things are legit and consistent especially. Real world stuff tho sometimes deviates from that ideal, so we need smth more handy and real. Add to the mix the algo counter part of means: quantiles.
Unlike the legacy quantile-based asymmetry metrics from the previous century (check quantile skewness & kurtosis), I don’t use arbitrary sets of quantiles, instead we get a binary pattern that is totally geometric & natural (check the code if interested, I made it very damn explicit). In spirit with math based central & standardized moments, each consequent pair is wider empathizing tail info more and more for each higher order metric.
Unlike the classic box plot, where inner thresholds are quartiles and the rest are based on em, here the basis is median (minimises L1), I base inner thresholds on it, and we continue the pattern by basing the further set of levels on the previous set. So unlike the classic box plot, here we have coherency in construction, symmetry.
Another thing to pay attention to, tho for some reason ain’t many talk about it, it’s not conceptually right to think that “you got data and you apply std moments on it”. No, you apply it to ‘centered around smth’ data. That ‘smth’ should minimize L2 error in case of math, L1 error in case of algo, and L0 error in case of learning/MLish/optimizational/whatever-you-cal-it stuff. So in the case of L0, that’s actually the ‘mode’ of KDE, but that’s for another time. Anyways, in case of L2 it’s mean, so we center data around mean, and apply std moments on residuals. That’s the precise way of framing it. If you understand this, suddenly very interesting details like 0th and 1st central moments start to make sense. In case of quantiles, we center data around the median, and do further processing on residuals, same.
Oth moment (I call it init) is always 1, tho it’s interesting to extrapolate backwards the sequence for higher order moments construction, to understand how we actually end up with this zero.
1st moment (I call it bias) of residuals would be zero if you match centering and residuals analysis methods. But for some reason you didn’t do that (e.g centered data around midhinge or mean and applied QBAD on the centered data), you have to account for that bias.
Realizing stuff > understanding stuff
Learning 2981234 human invented fields < realizing the same unified principles how the Universe works
∞
RVol+ Enhanced Relative Volume Indicator📊 RVol+ Enhanced Relative Volume Indicator
Overview
RVol+ (Relative Volume Plus) is an advanced time-based relative volume indicator designed specifically for swing traders and breakout detection. Unlike simple volume comparisons, RVol+ analyzes volume at the same time of day across multiple sessions, providing statistically significant insights into institutional activity and breakout potential.
🎯 Key Features
Core Volume Analysis
Time-Based RVol Calculation - Compares current cumulative volume to the average volume at this exact time over the past N days
Statistical Z-Score - Measures volume in standard deviations from the mean for true anomaly detection
Volume Percentile - Shows where current volume ranks historically (0-100%)
Sustained Volume Filter - 3-bar moving average prevents false signals from single-bar spikes
Breakout Detection
🚀 Confirmed Breakouts - Identifies price breakouts validated by high volume (RVol > 1.5x)
⚠️ False Breakout Warnings - Alerts when price breaks key levels on low volume (high failure risk)
Multi-Timeframe Context - Weekly volume overlay prevents chasing daily noise
Advanced Metrics
OBV Divergence Detection - Spots bullish/bearish accumulation/distribution patterns
Volume Profile Integration - Identifies institutional positioning
Money Flow Analysis - Tracks smart money vs retail activity
Extreme Volume Alerts - 🔥 Labels mark unusual spikes beyond the display cap
Visual Intelligence
Smart Color Coding:
🟢 Bright Teal = High activity (RVol ≥ 1.5x)
🟡 Medium Teal = Caution zone (RVol ≥ 1.2x)
⚪ Light Teal = Normal activity
🟠 Orange = Breakout confirmed
🔴 Red = False breakout risk
Comprehensive Stats Table:
Current Volume (formatted as M/K/B)
RVol ratio
Z-Score with significance
Volume percentile
Historical average and standard deviation
Sustained volume confirmation
📈 How to Use
For Swing Trading (1D - 3W Holds)
Perfect Setup:
✓ RVol > 1.5x (bright teal)
✓ Z-Score > 2.0 (⚡ alert)
✓ Percentile > 90%
✓ Sustained = ✓
✓ 🚀 Breakout label appears
Avoid:
✗ Red "Low Vol" warning during breakouts
✗ RVol < 1.0 at key levels
✗ Sustained volume not confirmed
Signal Interpretation
⚡ Z>2 Labels - Statistically significant volume (95th+ percentile) - highest probability moves
↗️ OBV+ Labels - Bullish accumulation (OBV rising while price consolidates)
↘️ OBV- Labels - Bearish distribution (OBV falling while price rises)
🔵 Blue Background - Weekly volume elevated (confirms daily strength)
⚙️ Customization
Basic Settings
N Day Average - Number of historical days for comparison (default: 5)
RVol Thresholds - Customize highlight levels (default: 1.2x, 1.5x)
Visual Display Cap - Prevent extreme spikes from compressing view (default: 4.0x)
Advanced Metrics (Toggle On/Off)
Z-Score analysis
Weekly RVol context
OBV divergence detection
Volume percentile ranking
Breakout signal generation
Table Customization
Position - 9 placement options to avoid chart overlap
Size - Tiny to Huge
Colors - Full customization of positive/negative/neutral values
Transparency - Adjustable background
Debug Mode
Enable Pine Logs for calculation transparency
Adjustable log frequency
Real-time calculation breakdown
🔬 Technical Details
Algorithm:
Binary search for historical lookups (O(log n) performance)
Time-zone aware session detection
DST-safe timestamp calculations
Exponentially weighted standard deviation
Anti-repainting architecture
Performance:
Optimized for max_bars_back = 5000
Efficient array management
Built-in function optimization
Memory-conscious data structures
📊 What Makes RVol+ Different?
vs. Standard Volume:
Context-aware (time-of-day matters)
Statistical significance testing
False breakout filtering
vs. Basic RVol:
Z-Score normalization (2-3 sigma detection)
Multi-timeframe confirmation
OBV divergence integration
Sustained volume filtering
Smart visual scaling
vs. Professional Tools:
Free and open-source
Fully customizable
No black-box algorithms
Educational debug logs
💡 Best Practices
Wait for Confirmation - Don't enter on first bar; wait for sustained volume ✓
Combine with Price Action - RVol validates, price structure determines entry
Weekly Context Matters - Blue background = institutional interest
Z-Score is King - Focus on ⚡ alerts for highest probability
Avoid Low Volume Breakouts - Red ⚠️ labels = high failure risk
🎓 Trading Psychology
Volume precedes price. When RVol+ shows:
High RVol + Rising OBV = Accumulation before breakout
High RVol at Resistance = Test of conviction
Low RVol on Breakout = Retail-driven (fade candidate)
Z-Score > 3 = Potential "whale" positioning
📝 Credits
Based on the time-based RVol concept from /u/HurlTeaInTheSea, enhanced with:
Statistical analysis (z-scores, percentiles)
Multi-timeframe integration
OBV divergence detection
Professional-grade visualization
Swing trading optimization
🔧 Version History
v2.0 - Enhanced Edition
Added Z-Score analysis
Multi-timeframe volume context
OBV divergence detection
Breakout confirmation system
Smart color coding
Customizable stats table
Debug logging mode
Performance optimizations
📚 Learn More
For optimal use with swing trading:
Combine with support/resistance levels
Watch for volume clusters in consolidation
Use weekly timeframe for trend confirmation
Monitor OBV divergence for early warnings
⚠️ Disclaimer
This indicator is for educational purposes. Volume analysis is one component of trading decisions. Always use proper risk management, consider multiple timeframes, and validate signals with price structure. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
🚀 Getting Started
Add indicator to chart
Adjust "N Day Average" to your preference (5-10 days typical)
Position stats table to avoid overlap
Enable features you want to monitor
Watch for 🚀 breakout confirmations!
Happy Trading! 📈
15m Continuation — prev → new (v6, styled)This indicator gives you backtested statistics on how often reversals vs continuations occur on 15 minute candles on any pair you want to trade. This is great for 15m binary markets like on Polymarket.
Machine Learning Gaussian Mixture Model | AlphaNattMachine Learning Gaussian Mixture Model | AlphaNatt
A revolutionary oscillator that uses Gaussian Mixture Models (GMM) with unsupervised machine learning to identify market regimes and automatically adapt momentum calculations - bringing statistical pattern recognition techniques to trading.
"Markets don't follow a single distribution - they're a mixture of different regimes. This oscillator identifies which regime we're in and adapts accordingly."
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🤖 THE MACHINE LEARNING
Gaussian Mixture Models (GMM):
Unlike K-means clustering which assigns hard boundaries, GMM uses probabilistic clustering :
Models data as coming from multiple Gaussian distributions
Each market regime is a different Gaussian component
Provides probability of belonging to each regime
More sophisticated than simple clustering
Expectation-Maximization Algorithm:
The indicator continuously learns and adapts using the E-M algorithm:
E-step: Calculate probability of current market belonging to each regime
M-step: Update regime parameters based on new data
Continuous learning without repainting
Adapts to changing market conditions
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🎯 THREE MARKET REGIMES
The GMM identifies three distinct market states:
Regime 1 - Low Volatility:
Quiet, ranging markets
Uses RSI-based momentum calculation
Reduces false signals in choppy conditions
Background: Pink tint
Regime 2 - Normal Market:
Standard trending conditions
Uses Rate of Change momentum
Balanced sensitivity
Background: Gray tint
Regime 3 - High Volatility:
Strong trends or volatility events
Uses Z-score based momentum
Captures extreme moves
Background: Cyan tint
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
💡 KEY INNOVATIONS
1. Probabilistic Regime Detection:
Instead of binary regime assignment, provides probabilities:
30% Regime 1, 60% Regime 2, 10% Regime 3
Smooth transitions between regimes
No sudden indicator jumps
2. Weighted Momentum Calculation:
Combines three different momentum formulas
Weights based on regime probabilities
Automatically adapts to market conditions
3. Confidence Indicator:
Shows how certain the model is (white line)
High confidence = strong regime identification
Low confidence = transitional market state
Line transparency changes with confidence
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
⚙️ PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION
Training Period (50-500):
50-100: Quick adaptation to recent conditions
100: Balanced (default)
200-500: Stable regime identification
Number of Components (2-5):
2: Simple bull/bear regimes
3: Low/Normal/High volatility (default)
4-5: More granular regime detection
Learning Rate (0.1-1.0):
0.1-0.3: Slow, stable learning
0.3: Balanced (default)
0.5-1.0: Fast adaptation
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📊 TRADING STRATEGIES
Visual Signals:
Cyan gradient: Bullish momentum
Magenta gradient: Bearish momentum
Background color: Current regime
Confidence line: Model certainty
1. Regime-Based Trading:
Regime 1 (pink): Expect mean reversion
Regime 2 (gray): Standard trend following
Regime 3 (cyan): Strong momentum trades
2. Confidence-Filtered Signals:
Only trade when confidence > 70%
High confidence = clearer market state
Avoid transitions (low confidence)
3. Adaptive Position Sizing:
Regime 1: Smaller positions (choppy)
Regime 2: Normal positions
Regime 3: Larger positions (trending)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🚀 ADVANTAGES OVER OTHER ML INDICATORS
vs K-Means Clustering:
Soft clustering (probabilities) vs hard boundaries
Captures uncertainty and transitions
More mathematically robust
vs KNN (K-Nearest Neighbors):
Unsupervised learning (no historical labels needed)
Continuous adaptation
Lower computational complexity
vs Neural Networks:
Interpretable (know what each regime means)
No overfitting issues
Works with limited data
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📈 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
Best Market Conditions:
Markets with clear regime shifts
Volatile to trending transitions
Multi-timeframe analysis
Cryptocurrency markets (high regime variation)
Key Strengths:
Automatically adapts to market changes
No manual parameter adjustment needed
Smooth transitions between regimes
Probabilistic confidence measure
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🔬 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
Gaussian Mixture Models are used extensively in:
Speech recognition (Google Assistant)
Computer vision (facial recognition)
Astronomy (galaxy classification)
Genomics (gene expression analysis)
Finance (risk modeling at investment banks)
The E-M algorithm was developed at Stanford in 1977 and is one of the most important algorithms in unsupervised machine learning.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
💡 PRO TIPS
Watch regime transitions: Best opportunities often occur when regimes change
Combine with volume: High volume + regime change = strong signal
Use confidence filter: Avoid low confidence periods
Multi-timeframe: Compare regimes across timeframes
Adjust position size: Scale based on identified regime
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
⚠️ IMPORTANT NOTES
Machine learning adapts but doesn't predict the future
Best used with other confirmation indicators
Allow time for model to learn (100+ bars)
Not financial advice - educational purposes
Backtest thoroughly on your instruments
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🏆 CONCLUSION
The GMM Momentum Oscillator brings institutional-grade machine learning to retail trading. By identifying market regimes probabilistically and adapting momentum calculations accordingly, it provides:
Automatic adaptation to market conditions
Clear regime identification with confidence levels
Smooth, professional signal generation
True unsupervised machine learning
This isn't just another indicator with "ML" in the name - it's a genuine implementation of Gaussian Mixture Models with the Expectation-Maximization algorithm, the same technology used in:
Google's speech recognition
Tesla's computer vision
NASA's data analysis
Wall Street risk models
"Let the machine learn the market regimes. Trade with statistical confidence."
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Developed by AlphaNatt | Machine Learning Trading Systems
Version: 1.0
Algorithm: Gaussian Mixture Model with E-M
Classification: Unsupervised Learning Oscillator
Not financial advice. Always DYOR.
MA20 & MA50 RisingMA20 & MA50 Rising Scanner
Detects when both the 20-period and 50-period simple moving averages turn upward on the most recent bar. Designed as a lightweight screener column for TradingView’s watchlists.
Overview
This indicator plots a binary flag (0 or 1) per symbol, where
- 1 means SMA(20) > SMA(20) and SMA(50) > SMA(50)
- 0 means one or both moving averages did not rise
Add it as a custom column in your watchlist to instantly surface stocks with both short- and medium-term trend acceleration.
How It Works
- Calculates ma20 = simple moving average of the last 20 closes
- Calculates ma50 = simple moving average of the last 50 closes
- Compares each with its prior value (ma20 and ma50 )
- Sets flag to 1 only when both are higher than yesterday’s values
When you filter your watchlist for flag == 1, you see only symbols whose 20- and 50-period SMAs both rose on the latest bar.
60 신고가 롱“60-Day New High Long” is a momentum breakout strategy that buys when price makes a fresh 60-day high, expecting continuation after resistance gives way.
Enter on the breakout close (or next open) with confirmation such as expanding volume, relative strength vs. a benchmark, and price above the 50/200-day MAs.
Manage risk with a stop below the recent swing low or 20-day low; take profits via ATR-based targets or a trailing stop, and be cautious around binary catalysts (earnings/news).
VWAP For Loop [BackQuant]VWAP For Loop
What this tool does—in one sentence
A volume-weighted trend gauge that anchors VWAP to a calendar period (day/week/month/quarter/year) and then scores the persistence of that VWAP trend with a simple for-loop “breadth” count; the result is a clean, threshold-driven oscillator plus an optional VWAP overlay and alerts.
Plain-English overview
Instead of judging raw price alone, this indicator focuses on anchored VWAP —the market’s average price paid during your chosen institutional period. It then asks a simple question across a configurable set of lookback steps: “Is the current anchored VWAP higher than it was i bars ago—or lower?” Each “yes” adds +1, each “no” adds −1. Summing those answers creates a score that reflects how consistently the volume-weighted trend has been rising or falling. Extreme positive scores imply persistent, broad strength; deeply negative scores imply persistent weakness. Crossing predefined thresholds produces objective long/short events and color-coded context.
Under the hood
• Anchoring — VWAP using hlc3 × volume resets exactly when the selected period rolls:
Day → session change, Week → new week, Month → new month, Quarter/Year → calendar quarter/year.
• For-loop scoring — For lag steps i = , compare today’s VWAP to VWAP .
– If VWAP > VWAP , add +1.
– Else, add −1.
The final score ∈ , where N = (end − start + 1). With defaults (1→45), N = 45.
• Signal logic (stateful)
– Long when score > upper (e.g., > 40 with N = 45 → VWAP higher than ~89% of checked lags).
– Short on crossunder of lower (e.g., dropping below −10).
– A compact state variable ( out ) holds the current regime: +1 (long), −1 (short), otherwise unchanged. This “stickiness” avoids constant flipping between bars without sufficient evidence.
Why VWAP + a breadth score?
• VWAP aggregates both price and volume—where participants actually traded.
• The breadth-style count rewards consistency of the anchored trend, not one-off spikes.
• Thresholds give you binary structure when you need it (alerts, automation), without complex math.
What you’ll see on the chart
• Sub-pane oscillator — The for-loop score line, colored by regime (long/short/neutral).
• Main-pane VWAP (optional) — Even though the indicator runs off-chart, the anchored VWAP can be overlaid on price (toggle visibility and whether it inherits trend colors).
• Threshold guides — Horizontal lines for the long/short bands (toggle).
• Cosmetics — Optional candle painting and background shading by regime; adjustable line width and colors.
Input map (quick reference)
• VWAP Anchor Period — Day, Week, Month, Quarter, Year.
• Calculation Start/End — The for-loop lag window . With 1→45, you evaluate 45 comparisons.
• Long/Short Thresholds — Default upper=40, lower=−10 (asymmetric by design; see below).
• UI/Style — Show thresholds, paint candles, background color, line width, VWAP visibility and coloring, custom long/short colors.
Interpreting the score
• Near +N — Current anchored VWAP is above most historical VWAP checkpoints in the window → entrenched strength.
• Near −N — Current anchored VWAP is below most checkpoints → entrenched weakness.
• Between — Mixed, choppy, or transitioning regimes; use thresholds to avoid reacting to noise.
Why the asymmetric default thresholds?
• Long = score > upper (40) — Demands unusually broad upside persistence before declaring “long regime.”
• Short = crossunder lower (−10) — Triggers only on downward momentum events (a fresh breach), not merely being below −10. This combination tends to:
– Capture sustained uptrends only when they’re very strong.
– Flag downside turns as they occur, rather than waiting for an extreme negative breadth.
Tuning guide
Choose an anchor that matches your horizon
– Intraday scalps : Day anchor on intraday charts.
– Swing/position : Month or Quarter anchor on 1h/4h/D charts to capture institutional cycles.
Pick the for-loop window
– Larger N (bigger end) = stronger evidence requirement, smoother oscillator.
– Smaller N = faster, more reactive score.
Set achievable thresholds
– Ensure upper ≤ N and lower ≥ −N ; if N=30, an upper of 40 can never trigger.
– Symmetric setups (e.g., +20/−20) are fine if you want balanced behavior.
Match visuals to intent
– Enabling VWAP coloring lets you see regime directly on price.
– Background shading is useful for discretionary reading; turn it off for cleaner automation displays.
Playbook examples
• Trend confirmation with disciplined entries — On Month anchor, N=45, upper=38–42: when the long regime engages, use pullbacks toward anchored VWAP on the main pane for entries, with stops just beyond VWAP or a recent swing.
• Downside transition detection — Keep lower around −8…−12 and watch for crossunders; combine with price losing anchored VWAP to validate risk-off.
• Intraday bias filter — Day anchor on a 5–15m chart, N=20–30, upper ~ 16–20, lower ~ −6…−10. Only take longs while score is positive and above a midline you define (e.g., 0), and shorts only after a genuine crossunder.
Behavior around resets (important)
Anchored VWAP is hard-reset each period. Immediately after a reset, the series can be young and comparisons to pre-reset values may span two periods. If you prefer within-period evaluation only, choose end small enough not to bridge typical period length on your timeframe, or accept that the breadth test intentionally spans regimes.
Alerts included
• VWAP FL Long — Fires when the long condition is true (score > upper and not in short).
• VWAP FL Short — Fires on crossunder of the lower threshold (event-driven).
Messages include {{ticker}} and {{interval}} placeholders for routing.
Strengths
• Simple, transparent math — Easy to reason about and validate.
• Volume-aware by construction — Decisions reference VWAP, not just price.
• Robust to single-bar noise — Needs many lags to agree before flipping state (by design, via thresholds and the stateful output).
Limitations & cautions
• Threshold feasibility — If N < upper or |lower| > N, signals will never trigger; always cross-check N.
• Path dependence — The state variable persists until a new event; if you want frequent re-evaluation, lower thresholds or reduce N.
• Regime changes — Calendar resets can produce early ambiguity; expect a few bars for the breadth to mature.
• VWAP sensitivity to volume spikes — Large prints can tilt VWAP abruptly; that behavior is intentional in VWAP-based logic.
Suggested starting profiles
• Intraday trend bias : Anchor=Day, N=25 (1→25), upper=18–20, lower=−8, paint candles ON.
• Swing bias : Anchor=Month, N=45 (1→45), upper=38–42, lower=−10, VWAP coloring ON, background OFF.
• Balanced reactivity : Anchor=Week, N=30 (1→30), upper=20–22, lower=−10…−12, symmetric if desired.
Implementation notes
• The indicator runs in a separate pane (oscillator), but VWAP itself is drawn on price using forced overlay so you can see interactions (touches, reclaim/loss).
• HLC3 is used for VWAP price; that’s a common choice to dampen wick noise while still reflecting intrabar range.
• For-loop cap is kept modest (≤50) for performance and clarity.
How to use this responsibly
Treat the oscillator as a bias and persistence meter . Combine it with your entry framework (structure breaks, liquidity zones, higher-timeframe context) and risk controls. The design emphasizes clarity over complexity—its edge is in how strictly it demands agreement before declaring a regime, not in predicting specific turns.
Summary
VWAP For Loop distills the question “How broadly is the anchored, volume-weighted trend advancing or retreating?” into a single, thresholded score you can read at a glance, alert on, and color through your chart. With careful anchoring and thresholds sized to your window length, it becomes a pragmatic bias filter for both systematic and discretionary workflows.
Six Meridian Divine Swords [theUltimator5]The Six Meridian Divine Sword is a legendary martial arts technique in the classic wuxia novel “Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils” (天龙八部) by Jin Yong (金庸). The technique uses powerful internal energy (qi) to shoot invisible sword-like energy beams from the six meridians of the hand. Each of the six fingers/meridians corresponds to a “sword,” giving six different sword energies.
The Six Meridian Divine Swords indicator is a compact “signal dashboard” that fuses six classic indicators (fingers)—MACD, KDJ, RSI, LWR (Williams %R), BBI, and MTM—into one pane. Each row is a traffic-light dot (green/bullish, red/bearish, gray/neutral). When all six align, the script draws a confirmation line (“All Bullish” or “All Bearish”). It’s designed for quick consensus reads across trend, momentum, and overbought/oversold conditions.
How to Read the Dashboard
The pane has 6 horizontal rows (explained in depth later):
MACD
KDJ
RSI
LWR (Larry Williams %R)
BBI (Bull & Bear Index)
MTM (Momentum)
Each tick in the row is a dot, with sentiment identified by a color.
Green = bullish condition met
Red = bearish condition met
Gray = inside a neutral band (filtering chop), shown when Use Neutral (Gray) Colors is ON
There are two lines that track the dots on the top or bottom of the pane.
All Bullish Signal Line: appears only if all 6 are strongly bullish (default color = white)
All Bearish Signal Line: appears only if all 6 are strongly bearish (default color = fuchsia)
The Six Meridians (Indicators) — What They Mean:
1) MACD — Trend & Momentum
What it is: A trend-following momentum indicator based on the relationship between two moving averages (typically 12-EMA and 26-EMA)
Logic used: Classic MACD line (EMA12−EMA26) vs its 9-EMA signal.
Bullish: MACD > Signal and |MACD−Signal| > Neutral Threshold
Bearish: MACD < Signal and |diff| > threshold
Neutral: |diff| ≤ threshold
Why: Small crosses can whipsaw. The neutral band ignores tiny separations to reduce noise.
Inputs: Fast/Slow/Signal lengths, Neutral Threshold.
2) KDJ — Stochastic with J-line boost
What it is: A variation of the stochastic oscillator popular in Chinese trading systems
Logic used: K = SMA(Stochastic, smooth), D = SMA(K, smooth), J = 3K − 2D.
Bullish: K > D and |K−D| > 2
Bearish: K < D and |K−D| > 2
Neutral: |K−D| ≤ 2
Why: K–D separation filters tiny wiggles; J offers an “extreme” early-warning context in the value label.
Inputs: Length, Smoothing.
3) RSI — Momentum balance (0–100)
What it is: A momentum oscillator measuring speed and magnitude of price changes (0–100)
Logic used: RSI(N).
Bullish: RSI > 50 + Neutral Zone
Bearish: RSI < 50 − Neutral Zone
Neutral: Between those bands
Why: Centerline/adaptive bands (around 50) give a directional bias without relying on fixed 70/30.
Inputs: Length, Neutral Zone (± around 50).
4) LWR (Williams %R) — Overbought/Oversold
What it is: An oscillator similar to stochastic, measuring how close the close is to the high-low range over N periods
Logic used: %R over N bars (0 to −100).
Bullish: %R > −50 + Neutral Zone
Bearish: %R < −50 − Neutral Zone
Neutral: Between those bands
Why: Uses a centered band around −50 instead of only −20/−80, making it act like a directional filter.
Inputs: Length, Neutral Zone (± around −50).
5) BBI (Bull & Bear Index) — Smoothed trend bias
What it is: A composite moving average, essentially the average of several different moving averages (often 3, 6, 12, 24 periods)
Logic used: Average of 4 SMAs (3/6/12/24 by default):
BBI = (MA3 + MA6 + MA12 + MA24) / 4
Bullish: Close > BBI and |Close−BBI| > 0.2% of BBI
Bearish: Close < BBI and |diff| > threshold
Neutral: |diff| ≤ threshold
Why: Multiple MAs blended together reduce single-MA whipsaw. A dynamic 0.2% band ignores tiny drift.
Inputs: 4 lengths (default 3/6/12/24). Threshold is auto-scaled at 0.2% of BBI.
6) MTM (Momentum) — Rate of change in price
What it is: A simple measure of rate of change
Logic used: MTM = Close − Close
Bullish: MTM > 0.5% of Close
Bearish: MTM < −0.5% of Close
Neutral: |MTM| ≤ threshold
Why: A percent-based gate adapts across prices (e.g., $5 vs $500) and mutes insignificant moves.
Inputs: Length. Threshold auto-scaled to 0.5% of current Close.
Display & Inputs You Can Tweak
🎨 Use Neutral (Gray) Colors
ON (default): 3-color mode with clear “no-trade”/“weak” states.
OFF: classic binary (green/red) without neutral filtering.
FlowScape PredictorFlowScape Predictor is a non-repainting, regime-aware entry qualifier that turns complex market context into two readiness scores (Long & Short, each 0/25/50/75/100) and clean, confirmed-bar signals. It blends three orthogonal pillars so you act only when trend energy, momentum, and location agree:
Regime (energy): ATR-normalized linear-regression slope of a smooth HMA → EMA baseline, gated by ADX to confirm when pressure is meaningful.
Momentum (push): RSI slope alignment so price has directional follow-through, not just drift.
Structure (location): proximity to pivot-confirmed swings, scaled by ATR, so “ready” appears near constructive pullbacks—not mid-trend chases.
A soft ATR cloud wraps the baseline for context. A yellow Predictive Baseline extends beyond the last bar to visualize near-term trajectory. It is visual-only: scores/alerts never use it.
What you see
Baseline line that turns green/red when regime is strong in that direction; gray when weak.
ATR cloud around the baseline (context for stretch and pullbacks).
Scores (Long & Short, 0–100 in steps of 25) and optional “L/S” icons on bar close.
Yellow Predictive Baseline that extends to the right for a few bars (visual trajectory of the smoothed baseline).
The scoring system (simple and transparent)
Each side (Long/Short) sums four binary checks, 25 points each:
Regime aligned: trendStrong is true and LR slope sign favors that side.
Momentum aligned: RSI side (>50 for Long, <50 for Short) and RSI slope confirms direction.
Baseline side: price is above (Long) / below (Short) the baseline.
Location constructive: distance from the last confirmed pivot is healthy (ATR-scaled; not overstretched).
Valid totals are 0, 25, 50, 75, 100.
Best-quality signal: 100/0 (your side/opposite) on bar close.
Good, still valid: 75/0, especially when the missing block is only “location” right as price re-engages the cloud/baseline.
Avoid: 75/25 or any opposition > 0 in a weak (gray) regime.
The Predictive (Kalman) line — what it is and isn’t
The yellow line is a visual forward extension of the smoothed baseline to help you see the current trajectory and time pullback resumptions. It does not predict price and is excluded from scores and alerts.
How it’s built (plain English):
We maintain a one-dimensional Kalman state x as a smoothed estimate of the baseline. Each bar we observe the current baseline z.
The filter adjusts its trust using the Kalman gain K = P / (P + R) and updates:
x := x + K*(z − x), then P := (1 − K)*P + Q.
Q (process noise): Higher Q → expects faster change → tracks turns quicker (less smoothing).
R (measurement noise): Higher R → trusts raw baseline less → smoother, steadier projection.
What you control:
Lead (how many bars forward to draw).
Kalman Q/R (visual smoothness vs. responsiveness).
Toggle the line on/off if you prefer a minimal chart.
Important: The predictive line extends the baseline, not price. It’s a visual timing aid—don’t automate off it.
How to use (step-by-step)
Keep the chart clean and use a standard OHLC/candlestick chart.
Read the regime: Prefer trades with green/red baseline (trendStrong = true).
Check scores on bar close:
Take Long 100 / Short 0 or Long 75 / Short 0 when the chart shows a tidy pullback re-engaging the cloud/baseline.
Mirror the logic for shorts.
Confirm location: If price is > ~1.5 ATR from its reference pivot, let it come back—avoid chasing.
Set alerts: Add an alert on Long Ready or Short Ready; these fire on closed bars only.
Risk management: Use ATR-buffered stops beyond the recent pivot; target fixed-R multiples (e.g., 1.5–3.0R). Manage the trade with the baseline/cloud if you trail.
Best-practice playbook (quick rules)
Green light: 100/0 (best) or 75/0 (good) on bar close in a colored (non-gray) regime.
Location first: Prefer entries near the baseline/cloud right after a pullback, not far above/below it.
Avoid mixed signals: Skip 75/25 and anything with opposition while the baseline is gray.
Use the yellow line with discretion: It helps you see rhythm; it’s not a signal source.
Timeframes & tuning (practical defaults)
Intraday indices/FX (5m–15m): Demand 100/0 in chop; allow 75/0 when ADX is awake and pullback is clean.
Crypto intraday (15m–1h): Prefer 100/0; 75/0 on the first pullback after a regime turn.
Swing (1h–4h/D1): 75/0 is often sufficient; 100/0 is excellent (fewer but cleaner signals).
If choppy: raise ADX threshold, raise the readiness bar (insist on 100/0), or lengthen the RSI slope window.
What makes FlowScape different
Energy-first regime filter: ATR-normalized LR slope + ADX gate yields a consistent read of trend quality across symbols and timeframes.
Location-aware entries: ATR-scaled pivot proximity discourages mid-air chases, encouraging pullback timing.
Separation of concerns: The predictive line is visual-only, while scores/alerts are confirmed on close for non-repainting behavior.
One simple score per side: A single 0–100 readiness figure is easier to tune than juggling multiple indicators.
Transparency & limitations
Scores are coarse by design (25-point blocks). They’re a gatekeeper, not a promise of outcomes.
Pivots confirm after right-side bars, so structure signals appear after swings form (non-repainting by design).
Avoid using non-standard chart types (Heikin Ashi, Renko, Range, etc.) for signals; use a clean, standard chart.
No lookahead, no higher-timeframe requests; alerts fire on closed bars only.
Kelly Position Size CalculatorThis position sizing calculator implements the Kelly Criterion, developed by John L. Kelly Jr. at Bell Laboratories in 1956, to determine mathematically optimal position sizes for maximizing long-term wealth growth. Unlike arbitrary position sizing methods, this tool provides a scientifically solution based on your strategy's actual performance statistics and incorporates modern refinements from over six decades of academic research.
The Kelly Criterion addresses a fundamental question in capital allocation: "What fraction of capital should be allocated to each opportunity to maximize growth while avoiding ruin?" This question has profound implications for financial markets, where traders and investors constantly face decisions about optimal capital allocation (Van Tharp, 2007).
Theoretical Foundation
The Kelly Criterion for binary outcomes is expressed as f* = (bp - q) / b, where f* represents the optimal fraction of capital to allocate, b denotes the risk-reward ratio, p indicates the probability of success, and q represents the probability of loss (Kelly, 1956). This formula maximizes the expected logarithm of wealth, ensuring maximum long-term growth rate while avoiding the risk of ruin.
The mathematical elegance of Kelly's approach lies in its derivation from information theory. Kelly's original work was motivated by Claude Shannon's information theory (Shannon, 1948), recognizing that maximizing the logarithm of wealth is equivalent to maximizing the rate of information transmission. This connection between information theory and wealth accumulation provides a deep theoretical foundation for optimal position sizing.
The logarithmic utility function underlying the Kelly Criterion naturally embodies several desirable properties for capital management. It exhibits decreasing marginal utility, penalizes large losses more severely than it rewards equivalent gains, and focuses on geometric rather than arithmetic mean returns, which is appropriate for compounding scenarios (Thorp, 2006).
Scientific Implementation
This calculator extends beyond basic Kelly implementation by incorporating state of the art refinements from academic research:
Parameter Uncertainty Adjustment: Following Michaud (1989), the implementation applies Bayesian shrinkage to account for parameter estimation error inherent in small sample sizes. The adjustment formula f_adjusted = f_kelly × confidence_factor + f_conservative × (1 - confidence_factor) addresses the overconfidence bias documented by Baker and McHale (2012), where the confidence factor increases with sample size and the conservative estimate equals 0.25 (quarter Kelly).
Sample Size Confidence: The reliability of Kelly calculations depends critically on sample size. Research by Browne and Whitt (1996) provides theoretical guidance on minimum sample requirements, suggesting that at least 30 independent observations are necessary for meaningful parameter estimates, with 100 or more trades providing reliable estimates for most trading strategies.
Universal Asset Compatibility: The calculator employs intelligent asset detection using TradingView's built-in symbol information, automatically adapting calculations for different asset classes without manual configuration.
ASSET SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION
Equity Markets: For stocks and ETFs, position sizing follows the calculation Shares = floor(Kelly Fraction × Account Size / Share Price). This straightforward approach reflects whole share constraints while accommodating fractional share trading capabilities.
Foreign Exchange Markets: Forex markets require lot-based calculations following Lot Size = Kelly Fraction × Account Size / (100,000 × Base Currency Value). The calculator automatically handles major currency pairs with appropriate pip value calculations, following industry standards described by Archer (2010).
Futures Markets: Futures position sizing accounts for leverage and margin requirements through Contracts = floor(Kelly Fraction × Account Size / Margin Requirement). The calculator estimates margin requirements as a percentage of contract notional value, with specific adjustments for micro-futures contracts that have smaller sizes and reduced margin requirements (Kaufman, 2013).
Index and Commodity Markets: These markets combine characteristics of both equity and futures markets. The calculator automatically detects whether instruments are cash-settled or futures-based, applying appropriate sizing methodologies with correct point value calculations.
Risk Management Integration
The calculator integrates sophisticated risk assessment through two primary modes:
Stop Loss Integration: When fixed stop-loss levels are defined, risk calculation follows Risk per Trade = Position Size × Stop Loss Distance. This ensures that the Kelly fraction accounts for actual risk exposure rather than theoretical maximum loss, with stop-loss distance measured in appropriate units for each asset class.
Strategy Drawdown Assessment: For discretionary exit strategies, risk estimation uses maximum historical drawdown through Risk per Trade = Position Value × (Maximum Drawdown / 100). This approach assumes that individual trade losses will not exceed the strategy's historical maximum drawdown, providing a reasonable estimate for strategies with well-defined risk characteristics.
Fractional Kelly Approaches
Pure Kelly sizing can produce substantial volatility, leading many practitioners to adopt fractional Kelly approaches. MacLean, Sanegre, Zhao, and Ziemba (2004) analyze the trade-offs between growth rate and volatility, demonstrating that half-Kelly typically reduces volatility by approximately 75% while sacrificing only 25% of the growth rate.
The calculator provides three primary Kelly modes to accommodate different risk preferences and experience levels. Full Kelly maximizes growth rate while accepting higher volatility, making it suitable for experienced practitioners with strong risk tolerance and robust capital bases. Half Kelly offers a balanced approach popular among professional traders, providing optimal risk-return balance by reducing volatility significantly while maintaining substantial growth potential. Quarter Kelly implements a conservative approach with low volatility, recommended for risk-averse traders or those new to Kelly methodology who prefer gradual introduction to optimal position sizing principles.
Empirical Validation and Performance
Extensive academic research supports the theoretical advantages of Kelly sizing. Hakansson and Ziemba (1995) provide a comprehensive review of Kelly applications in finance, documenting superior long-term performance across various market conditions and asset classes. Estrada (2008) analyzes Kelly performance in international equity markets, finding that Kelly-based strategies consistently outperform fixed position sizing approaches over extended periods across 19 developed markets over a 30-year period.
Several prominent investment firms have successfully implemented Kelly-based position sizing. Pabrai (2007) documents the application of Kelly principles at Berkshire Hathaway, noting Warren Buffett's concentrated portfolio approach aligns closely with Kelly optimal sizing for high-conviction investments. Quantitative hedge funds, including Renaissance Technologies and AQR, have incorporated Kelly-based risk management into their systematic trading strategies.
Practical Implementation Guidelines
Successful Kelly implementation requires systematic application with attention to several critical factors:
Parameter Estimation: Accurate parameter estimation represents the greatest challenge in practical Kelly implementation. Brown (1976) notes that small errors in probability estimates can lead to significant deviations from optimal performance. The calculator addresses this through Bayesian adjustments and confidence measures.
Sample Size Requirements: Users should begin with conservative fractional Kelly approaches until achieving sufficient historical data. Strategies with fewer than 30 trades may produce unreliable Kelly estimates, regardless of adjustments. Full confidence typically requires 100 or more independent trade observations.
Market Regime Considerations: Parameters that accurately describe historical performance may not reflect future market conditions. Ziemba (2003) recommends regular parameter updates and conservative adjustments when market conditions change significantly.
Professional Features and Customization
The calculator provides comprehensive customization options for professional applications:
Multiple Color Schemes: Eight professional color themes (Gold, EdgeTools, Behavioral, Quant, Ocean, Fire, Matrix, Arctic) with dark and light theme compatibility ensure optimal visibility across different trading environments.
Flexible Display Options: Adjustable table size and position accommodate various chart layouts and user preferences, while maintaining analytical depth and clarity.
Comprehensive Results: The results table presents essential information including asset specifications, strategy statistics, Kelly calculations, sample confidence measures, position values, risk assessments, and final position sizes in appropriate units for each asset class.
Limitations and Considerations
Like any analytical tool, the Kelly Criterion has important limitations that users must understand:
Stationarity Assumption: The Kelly Criterion assumes that historical strategy statistics represent future performance characteristics. Non-stationary market conditions may invalidate this assumption, as noted by Lo and MacKinlay (1999).
Independence Requirement: Each trade should be independent to avoid correlation effects. Many trading strategies exhibit serial correlation in returns, which can affect optimal position sizing and may require adjustments for portfolio applications.
Parameter Sensitivity: Kelly calculations are sensitive to parameter accuracy. Regular calibration and conservative approaches are essential when parameter uncertainty is high.
Transaction Costs: The implementation incorporates user-defined transaction costs but assumes these remain constant across different position sizes and market conditions, following Ziemba (2003).
Advanced Applications and Extensions
Multi-Asset Portfolio Considerations: While this calculator optimizes individual position sizes, portfolio-level applications require additional considerations for correlation effects and aggregate risk management. Simplified portfolio approaches include treating positions independently with correlation adjustments.
Behavioral Factors: Behavioral finance research reveals systematic biases that can interfere with Kelly implementation. Kahneman and Tversky (1979) document loss aversion, overconfidence, and other cognitive biases that lead traders to deviate from optimal strategies. Successful implementation requires disciplined adherence to calculated recommendations.
Time-Varying Parameters: Advanced implementations may incorporate time-varying parameter models that adjust Kelly recommendations based on changing market conditions, though these require sophisticated econometric techniques and substantial computational resources.
Comprehensive Usage Instructions and Practical Examples
Implementation begins with loading the calculator on your desired trading instrument's chart. The system automatically detects asset type across stocks, forex, futures, and cryptocurrency markets while extracting current price information. Navigation to the indicator settings allows input of your specific strategy parameters.
Strategy statistics configuration requires careful attention to several key metrics. The win rate should be calculated from your backtest results using the formula of winning trades divided by total trades multiplied by 100. Average win represents the sum of all profitable trades divided by the number of winning trades, while average loss calculates the sum of all losing trades divided by the number of losing trades, entered as a positive number. The total historical trades parameter requires the complete number of trades in your backtest, with a minimum of 30 trades recommended for basic functionality and 100 or more trades optimal for statistical reliability. Account size should reflect your available trading capital, specifically the risk capital allocated for trading rather than total net worth.
Risk management configuration adapts to your specific trading approach. The stop loss setting should be enabled if you employ fixed stop-loss exits, with the stop loss distance specified in appropriate units depending on the asset class. For stocks, this distance is measured in dollars, for forex in pips, and for futures in ticks. When stop losses are not used, the maximum strategy drawdown percentage from your backtest provides the risk assessment baseline. Kelly mode selection offers three primary approaches: Full Kelly for aggressive growth with higher volatility suitable for experienced practitioners, Half Kelly for balanced risk-return optimization popular among professional traders, and Quarter Kelly for conservative approaches with reduced volatility.
Display customization ensures optimal integration with your trading environment. Eight professional color themes provide optimization for different chart backgrounds and personal preferences. Table position selection allows optimal placement within your chart layout, while table size adjustment ensures readability across different screen resolutions and viewing preferences.
Detailed Practical Examples
Example 1: SPY Swing Trading Strategy
Consider a professionally developed swing trading strategy for SPY (S&P 500 ETF) with backtesting results spanning 166 total trades. The strategy achieved 110 winning trades, representing a 66.3% win rate, with an average winning trade of $2,200 and average losing trade of $862. The maximum drawdown reached 31.4% during the testing period, and the available trading capital amounts to $25,000. This strategy employs discretionary exits without fixed stop losses.
Implementation requires loading the calculator on the SPY daily chart and configuring the parameters accordingly. The win rate input receives 66.3, while average win and loss inputs receive 2200 and 862 respectively. Total historical trades input requires 166, with account size set to 25000. The stop loss function remains disabled due to the discretionary exit approach, with maximum strategy drawdown set to 31.4%. Half Kelly mode provides the optimal balance between growth and risk management for this application.
The calculator generates several key outputs for this scenario. The risk-reward ratio calculates automatically to 2.55, while the Kelly fraction reaches approximately 53% before scientific adjustments. Sample confidence achieves 100% given the 166 trades providing high statistical confidence. The recommended position settles at approximately 27% after Half Kelly and Bayesian adjustment factors. Position value reaches approximately $6,750, translating to 16 shares at a $420 SPY price. Risk per trade amounts to approximately $2,110, representing 31.4% of position value, with expected value per trade reaching approximately $1,466. This recommendation represents the mathematically optimal balance between growth potential and risk management for this specific strategy profile.
Example 2: EURUSD Day Trading with Stop Losses
A high-frequency EURUSD day trading strategy demonstrates different parameter requirements compared to swing trading approaches. This strategy encompasses 89 total trades with a 58% win rate, generating an average winning trade of $180 and average losing trade of $95. The maximum drawdown reached 12% during testing, with available capital of $10,000. The strategy employs fixed stop losses at 25 pips and take profit targets at 45 pips, providing clear risk-reward parameters.
Implementation begins with loading the calculator on the EURUSD 1-hour chart for appropriate timeframe alignment. Parameter configuration includes win rate at 58, average win at 180, and average loss at 95. Total historical trades input receives 89, with account size set to 10000. The stop loss function is enabled with distance set to 25 pips, reflecting the fixed exit strategy. Quarter Kelly mode provides conservative positioning due to the smaller sample size compared to the previous example.
Results demonstrate the impact of smaller sample sizes on Kelly calculations. The risk-reward ratio calculates to 1.89, while the Kelly fraction reaches approximately 32% before adjustments. Sample confidence achieves 89%, providing moderate statistical confidence given the 89 trades. The recommended position settles at approximately 7% after Quarter Kelly application and Bayesian shrinkage adjustment for the smaller sample. Position value amounts to approximately $700, translating to 0.07 standard lots. Risk per trade reaches approximately $175, calculated as 25 pips multiplied by lot size and pip value, with expected value per trade at approximately $49. This conservative position sizing reflects the smaller sample size, with position sizes expected to increase as trade count surpasses 100 and statistical confidence improves.
Example 3: ES1! Futures Systematic Strategy
Systematic futures trading presents unique considerations for Kelly criterion application, as demonstrated by an E-mini S&P 500 futures strategy encompassing 234 total trades. This systematic approach achieved a 45% win rate with an average winning trade of $1,850 and average losing trade of $720. The maximum drawdown reached 18% during the testing period, with available capital of $50,000. The strategy employs 15-tick stop losses with contract specifications of $50 per tick, providing precise risk control mechanisms.
Implementation involves loading the calculator on the ES1! 15-minute chart to align with the systematic trading timeframe. Parameter configuration includes win rate at 45, average win at 1850, and average loss at 720. Total historical trades receives 234, providing robust statistical foundation, with account size set to 50000. The stop loss function is enabled with distance set to 15 ticks, reflecting the systematic exit methodology. Half Kelly mode balances growth potential with appropriate risk management for futures trading.
Results illustrate how favorable risk-reward ratios can support meaningful position sizing despite lower win rates. The risk-reward ratio calculates to 2.57, while the Kelly fraction reaches approximately 16%, lower than previous examples due to the sub-50% win rate. Sample confidence achieves 100% given the 234 trades providing high statistical confidence. The recommended position settles at approximately 8% after Half Kelly adjustment. Estimated margin per contract amounts to approximately $2,500, resulting in a single contract allocation. Position value reaches approximately $2,500, with risk per trade at $750, calculated as 15 ticks multiplied by $50 per tick. Expected value per trade amounts to approximately $508. Despite the lower win rate, the favorable risk-reward ratio supports meaningful position sizing, with single contract allocation reflecting appropriate leverage management for futures trading.
Example 4: MES1! Micro-Futures for Smaller Accounts
Micro-futures contracts provide enhanced accessibility for smaller trading accounts while maintaining identical strategy characteristics. Using the same systematic strategy statistics from the previous example but with available capital of $15,000 and micro-futures specifications of $5 per tick with reduced margin requirements, the implementation demonstrates improved position sizing granularity.
Kelly calculations remain identical to the full-sized contract example, maintaining the same risk-reward dynamics and statistical foundations. However, estimated margin per contract reduces to approximately $250 for micro-contracts, enabling allocation of 4-5 micro-contracts. Position value reaches approximately $1,200, while risk per trade calculates to $75, derived from 15 ticks multiplied by $5 per tick. This granularity advantage provides better position size precision for smaller accounts, enabling more accurate Kelly implementation without requiring large capital commitments.
Example 5: Bitcoin Swing Trading
Cryptocurrency markets present unique challenges requiring modified Kelly application approaches. A Bitcoin swing trading strategy on BTCUSD encompasses 67 total trades with a 71% win rate, generating average winning trades of $3,200 and average losing trades of $1,400. Maximum drawdown reached 28% during testing, with available capital of $30,000. The strategy employs technical analysis for exits without fixed stop losses, relying on price action and momentum indicators.
Implementation requires conservative approaches due to cryptocurrency volatility characteristics. Quarter Kelly mode is recommended despite the high win rate to account for crypto market unpredictability. Expected position sizing remains reduced due to the limited sample size of 67 trades, requiring additional caution until statistical confidence improves. Regular parameter updates are strongly recommended due to cryptocurrency market evolution and changing volatility patterns that can significantly impact strategy performance characteristics.
Advanced Usage Scenarios
Portfolio position sizing requires sophisticated consideration when running multiple strategies simultaneously. Each strategy should have its Kelly fraction calculated independently to maintain mathematical integrity. However, correlation adjustments become necessary when strategies exhibit related performance patterns. Moderately correlated strategies should receive individual position size reductions of 10-20% to account for overlapping risk exposure. Aggregate portfolio risk monitoring ensures total exposure remains within acceptable limits across all active strategies. Professional practitioners often consider using lower fractional Kelly approaches, such as Quarter Kelly, when running multiple strategies simultaneously to provide additional safety margins.
Parameter sensitivity analysis forms a critical component of professional Kelly implementation. Regular validation procedures should include monthly parameter updates using rolling 100-trade windows to capture evolving market conditions while maintaining statistical relevance. Sensitivity testing involves varying win rates by ±5% and average win/loss ratios by ±10% to assess recommendation stability under different parameter assumptions. Out-of-sample validation reserves 20% of historical data for parameter verification, ensuring that optimization doesn't create curve-fitted results. Regime change detection monitors actual performance against expected metrics, triggering parameter reassessment when significant deviations occur.
Risk management integration requires professional overlay considerations beyond pure Kelly calculations. Daily loss limits should cease trading when daily losses exceed twice the calculated risk per trade, preventing emotional decision-making during adverse periods. Maximum position limits should never exceed 25% of account value in any single position regardless of Kelly recommendations, maintaining diversification principles. Correlation monitoring reduces position sizes when holding multiple correlated positions that move together during market stress. Volatility adjustments consider reducing position sizes during periods of elevated VIX above 25 for equity strategies, adapting to changing market conditions.
Troubleshooting and Optimization
Professional implementation often encounters specific challenges requiring systematic troubleshooting approaches. Zero position size displays typically result from insufficient capital for minimum position sizes, negative expected values, or extremely conservative Kelly calculations. Solutions include increasing account size, verifying strategy statistics for accuracy, considering Quarter Kelly mode for conservative approaches, or reassessing overall strategy viability when fundamental issues exist.
Extremely high Kelly fractions exceeding 50% usually indicate underlying problems with parameter estimation. Common causes include unrealistic win rates, inflated risk-reward ratios, or curve-fitted backtest results that don't reflect genuine trading conditions. Solutions require verifying backtest methodology, including all transaction costs in calculations, testing strategies on out-of-sample data, and using conservative fractional Kelly approaches until parameter reliability improves.
Low sample confidence below 50% reflects insufficient historical trades for reliable parameter estimation. This situation demands gathering additional trading data, using Quarter Kelly approaches until reaching 100 or more trades, applying extra conservatism in position sizing, and considering paper trading to build statistical foundations without capital risk.
Inconsistent results across similar strategies often stem from parameter estimation differences, market regime changes, or strategy degradation over time. Professional solutions include standardizing backtest methodology across all strategies, updating parameters regularly to reflect current conditions, and monitoring live performance against expectations to identify deteriorating strategies.
Position sizes that appear inappropriately large or small require careful validation against traditional risk management principles. Professional standards recommend never risking more than 2-3% per trade regardless of Kelly calculations. Calibration should begin with Quarter Kelly approaches, gradually increasing as comfort and confidence develop. Most institutional traders utilize 25-50% of full Kelly recommendations to balance growth with prudent risk management.
Market condition adjustments require dynamic approaches to Kelly implementation. Trending markets may support full Kelly recommendations when directional momentum provides favorable conditions. Ranging or volatile markets typically warrant reducing to Half or Quarter Kelly to account for increased uncertainty. High correlation periods demand reducing individual position sizes when multiple positions move together, concentrating risk exposure. News and event periods often justify temporary position size reductions during high-impact releases that can create unpredictable market movements.
Performance monitoring requires systematic protocols to ensure Kelly implementation remains effective over time. Weekly reviews should compare actual versus expected win rates and average win/loss ratios to identify parameter drift or strategy degradation. Position size efficiency and execution quality monitoring ensures that calculated recommendations translate effectively into actual trading results. Tracking correlation between calculated and realized risk helps identify discrepancies between theoretical and practical risk exposure.
Monthly calibration provides more comprehensive parameter assessment using the most recent 100 trades to maintain statistical relevance while capturing current market conditions. Kelly mode appropriateness requires reassessment based on recent market volatility and performance characteristics, potentially shifting between Full, Half, and Quarter Kelly approaches as conditions change. Transaction cost evaluation ensures that commission structures, spreads, and slippage estimates remain accurate and current.
Quarterly strategic reviews encompass comprehensive strategy performance analysis comparing long-term results against expectations and identifying trends in effectiveness. Market regime assessment evaluates parameter stability across different market conditions, determining whether strategy characteristics remain consistent or require fundamental adjustments. Strategic modifications to position sizing methodology may become necessary as markets evolve or trading approaches mature, ensuring that Kelly implementation continues supporting optimal capital allocation objectives.
Professional Applications
This calculator serves diverse professional applications across the financial industry. Quantitative hedge funds utilize the implementation for systematic position sizing within algorithmic trading frameworks, where mathematical precision and consistent application prove essential for institutional capital management. Professional discretionary traders benefit from optimized position management that removes emotional bias while maintaining flexibility for market-specific adjustments. Portfolio managers employ the calculator for developing risk-adjusted allocation strategies that enhance returns while maintaining prudent risk controls across diverse asset classes and investment strategies.
Individual traders seeking mathematical optimization of capital allocation find the calculator provides institutional-grade methodology previously available only to professional money managers. The Kelly Criterion establishes theoretical foundation for optimal capital allocation across both single strategies and multiple trading systems, offering significant advantages over arbitrary position sizing methods that rely on intuition or fixed percentage approaches. Professional implementation ensures consistent application of mathematically sound principles while adapting to changing market conditions and strategy performance characteristics.
Conclusion
The Kelly Criterion represents one of the few mathematically optimal solutions to fundamental investment problems. When properly understood and carefully implemented, it provides significant competitive advantage in financial markets. This calculator implements modern refinements to Kelly's original formula while maintaining accessibility for practical trading applications.
Success with Kelly requires ongoing learning, systematic application, and continuous refinement based on market feedback and evolving research. Users who master Kelly principles and implement them systematically can expect superior risk-adjusted returns and more consistent capital growth over extended periods.
The extensive academic literature provides rich resources for deeper study, while practical experience builds the intuition necessary for effective implementation. Regular parameter updates, conservative approaches with limited data, and disciplined adherence to calculated recommendations are essential for optimal results.
References
Archer, M. D. (2010). Getting Started in Currency Trading: Winning in Today's Forex Market (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Baker, R. D., & McHale, I. G. (2012). An empirical Bayes approach to optimising betting strategies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 61(1), 75-92.
Breiman, L. (1961). Optimal gambling systems for favorable games. In J. Neyman (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (pp. 65-78). University of California Press.
Brown, D. B. (1976). Optimal portfolio growth: Logarithmic utility and the Kelly criterion. In W. T. Ziemba & R. G. Vickson (Eds.), Stochastic Optimization Models in Finance (pp. 1-23). Academic Press.
Browne, S., & Whitt, W. (1996). Portfolio choice and the Bayesian Kelly criterion. Advances in Applied Probability, 28(4), 1145-1176.
Estrada, J. (2008). Geometric mean maximization: An overlooked portfolio approach? The Journal of Investing, 17(4), 134-147.
Hakansson, N. H., & Ziemba, W. T. (1995). Capital growth theory. In R. A. Jarrow, V. Maksimovic, & W. T. Ziemba (Eds.), Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science (Vol. 9, pp. 65-86). Elsevier.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Kaufman, P. J. (2013). Trading Systems and Methods (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Kelly Jr, J. L. (1956). A new interpretation of information rate. Bell System Technical Journal, 35(4), 917-926.
Lo, A. W., & MacKinlay, A. C. (1999). A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street. Princeton University Press.
MacLean, L. C., Sanegre, E. O., Zhao, Y., & Ziemba, W. T. (2004). Capital growth with security. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28(4), 937-954.
MacLean, L. C., Thorp, E. O., & Ziemba, W. T. (2011). The Kelly Capital Growth Investment Criterion: Theory and Practice. World Scientific.
Michaud, R. O. (1989). The Markowitz optimization enigma: Is 'optimized' optimal? Financial Analysts Journal, 45(1), 31-42.
Pabrai, M. (2007). The Dhandho Investor: The Low-Risk Value Method to High Returns. John Wiley & Sons.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423.
Tharp, V. K. (2007). Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Thorp, E. O. (2006). The Kelly criterion in blackjack sports betting, and the stock market. In L. C. MacLean, E. O. Thorp, & W. T. Ziemba (Eds.), The Kelly Capital Growth Investment Criterion: Theory and Practice (pp. 789-832). World Scientific.
Van Tharp, K. (2007). Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Vince, R. (1992). The Mathematics of Money Management: Risk Analysis Techniques for Traders. John Wiley & Sons.
Vince, R., & Zhu, H. (2015). Optimal betting under parameter uncertainty. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 161, 19-31.
Ziemba, W. T. (2003). The Stochastic Programming Approach to Asset, Liability, and Wealth Management. The Research Foundation of AIMR.
Further Reading
For comprehensive understanding of Kelly Criterion applications and advanced implementations:
MacLean, L. C., Thorp, E. O., & Ziemba, W. T. (2011). The Kelly Capital Growth Investment Criterion: Theory and Practice. World Scientific.
Vince, R. (1992). The Mathematics of Money Management: Risk Analysis Techniques for Traders. John Wiley & Sons.
Thorp, E. O. (2017). A Man for All Markets: From Las Vegas to Wall Street. Random House.
Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (2006). Elements of Information Theory (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Ziemba, W. T., & Vickson, R. G. (Eds.). (2006). Stochastic Optimization Models in Finance. World Scientific.
Fear Volatility Gate [by Oberlunar]The Fear Volatility Gate by Oberlunar is a filter designed to enhance operational prudence by leveraging volatility-based risk indices. Its architecture is grounded in the empirical observation that sudden shifts in implied volatility often precede instability across financial markets. By dynamically interpreting signals from globally recognized "fear indices", such as the VIX, the indicator aims to identify periods of elevated systemic uncertainty and, accordingly, restrict or flag potential trade entries.
The rationale behind the Fear Volatility Gate is rooted in the understanding that implied volatility represents a forward-looking estimate of market risk. When volatility indices rise sharply, it reflects increased demand for options and a broader perception of uncertainty. In such contexts, price movements can become less predictable, more erratic, and often decoupled from technical structures. Rather than relying on price alone, this filter provides an external perspective—derived from derivative markets—on whether current conditions justify caution.
The indicator operates in two primary modes: single-source and composite . In the single-source configuration, a user-defined volatility index is monitored individually. In composite mode, the filter can synthesize input from multiple indices simultaneously, offering a more comprehensive macro-risk assessment. The filtering logic is adaptable, allowing signals to be combined using inclusive (ANY), strict (ALL), or majority consensus logic. This allows the trader to tailor sensitivity based on the operational context or asset class.
The indices available for selection cover a broad spectrum of market sectors. In the equity domain, the filter supports the CBOE Volatility Index ( CBOE:VIX VIX) for the S&P 500, the Nasdaq-100 Volatility Index ( CBOE:VXN VXN), the Russell 2000 Volatility Index ( CBOEFTSE:RVX RVX), and the Dow Jones Volatility Index ( CBOE:VXD VXD). For commodities, it integrates the Crude Oil Volatility Index ( CBOE:OVX ), the Gold Volatility Index ( CBOE:GVZ ), and the Silver Volatility Index ( CBOE:VXSLV ). From the fixed income perspective, it includes the ICE Bank of America MOVE Index ( OKX:MOVEUSD ), the Volatility Index for the TLT ETF ( CBOE:VXTLT VXTLT), and the 5-Year Treasury Yield Index ( CBOE:FVX.P FVX). Within the cryptocurrency space, it incorporates the Bitcoin Volmex Implied Volatility Index ( VOLMEX:BVIV BVIV), the Ethereum Volmex Implied Volatility Index ( VOLMEX:EVIV EVIV), the Deribit Bitcoin Volatility Index ( DERIBIT:DVOL DVOL), and the Deribit Ethereum Volatility Index ( DERIBIT:ETHDVOL ETHDVOL). Additionally, the user may define a custom instrument for specialized tracking.
To determine whether market conditions are considered high-risk, the indicator supports three modes of evaluation.
The moving average cross mode compares a fast Hull Moving Average to a slower one, triggering a signal when short-term volatility exceeds long-term expectations.
The Z-score mode standardizes current volatility relative to historical mean and standard deviation, identifying significant deviations that may indicate abnormal market stress.
The percentile mode ranks the current value against a historical distribution, providing a relative perspective particularly useful when dealing with non-normal or skewed distributions.
When at least one selected index meets the condition defined by the chosen mode, and if the filtering logic confirms it, the indicator can mark the trading environment as “blocked”. This status is visually highlighted through background color changes and symbolic markers on the chart. An optional tabular interface provides detailed diagnostics, including raw values, fast-slow MA comparison, Z-scores, percentile levels, and binary risk status for each active index.
The Fear Volatility Gate is not a predictive tool in itself but rather a dynamic constraint layer that reinforces discipline under conditions of macro instability. It is particularly valuable when trading systems are exposed to highly leveraged or short-duration strategies, where market noise and sentiment can temporarily override structural price behavior. By synchronizing trading signals with volatility regimes, the filter promotes a more cautious, informed approach to decision-making.
This approach does not assume that all volatility spikes are harmful or that market corrections are imminent. Rather, it acknowledges that periods of elevated implied volatility statistically coincide with increased execution risk, slippage, and spread widening, all of which may erode the profitability of even the most technically accurate setups.
Therefore, the Fear Volatility Gate acts as a protective mechanism.
Oberlunar 👁️⭐
