I have encountered the same face again. But I’m not surprised anymore
The first time I was surprised. The second time, I thought, again. The third time, it turned out to be as I had anticipated.
Last time → 【Episode 3】 The numbers that looked promising did not leave a single one behind
A recap of what happened up to last time
Last time, when we tested one of the short timeframes (M30), even though many numbers looked good, ultimately not a single candidate survived as a viable option. I conveyed the honest confession that we still did not understand the reason.
This time, I will share another experience we encountered while testing the other short timeframe (M15).
We encountered that phenomenon again
As we advanced the tests for the short timeframes, we once again found ourselves facing a familiar scene.In multiple currency pairs, the exact same structural conditions surfaced as viable candidates independently of one another.
Even though the currency pairs and the price movement backgrounds should be different, the indicator combinations, the threshold values, and even the settlement settings matched perfectly in every detail. This wasn’t a single occurrence; we found it again this time as well.
Now, the third time
To be honest, this phenomenon isn’t new. In the third installment, we shared that multiple candidates happened to have the same conditions. In the fourth installment, when we examined the “in-between” timeframe, the same thing occurred. And now, while examining the short timeframe, we have encountered this phenomenon for the third time.
【Image: 35_three_times_timeline.png to be inserted here (owner will paste manually)】
The first time was surprise, the second time felt off, the third time
When I first encountered this phenomenon, I was honestly surprised. There was a certain disappointment in thinking, “Were all those multiple candidates actually the same thing?” When I encountered it the second time, the feeling was less about surprise and more about a sense that, perhaps, this isn’t just a coincidence.
And this third time, before any surprise, I could calmly accept it as“Oh, it appeared again,”a calm reaction. This isn’t because our eyes have grown dull; on the contrary. Given the exploration mechanism we use (a single sequence of random numbers to mechanically test combinations of indicators), it’s natural that similar or identical Candidates will recur to some extent as we accumulate experience. I feel this understanding has grown stronger with each iteration.
【Image: 35_surprise_to_calm.png to be inserted here (owner will paste manually)】
Being calm doesn’t mean we treat it lightly
However, there is one thing I want to make clear. Just because we’re getting used to this phenomenon doesn’t mean we will overlook it. On the contrary, precisely because we’re getting used to it,we make sure to document the facts properly every timeand maintain that stance unchanged.
I don’t think, “It’s already the third time, so there’s no need to explain.” No matter how many times it occurs, the fact that among the multiple currency pairs, there are candidates whose conditions overlap, will be honestly communicated each time. This is a promise the lab has consistently upheld since the first series.
【Image: 35_consistent_honesty.png to be inserted here (owner will paste manually)】
Disclaimer
- The contents shared in this note do not constitute recommendations for specific buying or selling, nor investment advice. It is for information sharing only.
- Results from validations based on past data do not guarantee future results. Markets always change.
- Whether you actually execute trades should always be your own responsibility.
Next time, we will provide a recap of having finished examining all six timeframes from Episode 1 to Episode 5. If you’d like, you can follow to receive the next article as well.
※ Currently, the official LINE account is under preparation. We will announce here as soon as it is set up.
Next: 【Episode 5】 From short timeframes to long timeframes, finally we’ve seen them all