No saved results · Filters · before 2026-09-26

Does volume-profile (FRVP/POC) confluence improve setups?

What this means

This tried volume-profile confluence (point of control near D) on 8 hand-picked stocks, plus a Pine version using the point of control as the first target. Neither run left any saved output. Nothing can be concluded; a proper test would tag each TradingView trade with the volume-profile condition across the full universe.

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: own engine on 8 tickers and a POC Pine strategy, nothing saved; would need the VP strategy swept (not proposed: no feature or design work exists to make it comparable) (see tradingview_runs.md)
1-hour	Not tested: not tested yet: own engine on 8 tickers and a POC Pine strategy, nothing saved; would need the VP strategy swept (not proposed: no feature or design work exists to make it comparable) (see tradingview_runs.md)
4-hour	Not tested: not tested yet: own engine on 8 tickers and a POC Pine strategy, nothing saved; would need the VP strategy swept (not proposed: no feature or design work exists to make it comparable) (see tradingview_runs.md)
Daily	Not tested: not tested yet: own engine on 8 tickers and a POC Pine strategy, nothing saved; would need the VP strategy swept (not proposed: no feature or design work exists to make it comparable) (see tradingview_runs.md)

Hypothesis: Harmonics with fixed-range volume-profile confluence beat plain harmonics.
Method: Own Python engine on 8 tickers; plus a Pine strategy using POC as TP1 / BE at POC.
Result: No saved output for either.
How much to trust it: Low: 8 hand-picked tickers; nothing saved
Did it change the live rule?: No.

Scripts and data for this study will be linked here when the research code is published on GitHub.

← All experiments

Education and research only. Not financial advice. Backtests use today's index members (survivorship bias).