Inconclusive · Filters · 2026-09-19
Do setups whose D sits on a Renko support shelf do better?
What this means
Setups with a Renko support shelf at D showed higher expectancy (+0.99R vs +0.87R at a 2R target). But the simulation used a hindsight zigzag, so its expectancies are about four times the real TradingView level, and the comparison group was only 103 trades with no confidence interval. The numbers should not be relied on, and nothing firm can be said about Renko confluence.
The explanation is our best reading; the data shows the result but not the cause directly.
By timeframe
| Timeframe | Verdict | n | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15-minute | Not tested: not tested yet: Renko-zone flag is not tagged in the logs; needs a sweep with 'Require Renko Support Shelf Confluence' on (low priority) (see tradingview_runs.md) | ||
| 1-hour | Inconclusive | 379 | +0.99R with vs +0.87R without (look-ahead) |
| 4-hour | Not tested: not tested yet: Renko flag not tagged; needs a TradingView sweep (low priority) (see tradingview_runs.md) | ||
| Daily | Not tested: not tested yet: Renko flag not tagged; needs a TradingView sweep (low priority) (see tradingview_runs.md) | ||
- Hypothesis
- Harmonic setups with Renko multi-touch support-zone confluence outperform those without.
- Method
- Own Python sim, yfinance 1h; 379 trades; targets 1.5R / 2R / 4R.
- Result
- TP 2R expectancy: with Renko +0.99R (n=276), without +0.87R (n=103); TP 1.5R +0.86 vs +0.76; TP 4R +0.89 vs +0.68.
- How much to trust it
- Low: look-ahead zigzag (expectancies ~4x the TV level), small control group, no CI
- Did it change the live rule?
- Renko zone is detected and shown on alerts, but 'Require Renko' stays off
Scripts and data for this study will be linked here when the research code is published on GitHub.
Education and research only. Not financial advice. Backtests use today's index members (survivorship bias).