Not supported · Patterns · 2026-09-26
Would a smaller zigzag give more setups without losing edge?
What this means
Smaller zigzag presets did give more setups (1,246 and 1,435 against 997 for Large), but the average setup earned less (+0.08R vs +0.11R). The smallest preset produced no trades at all on the 30 test stocks. The differences are within noise for 30 stocks, so there is no evidence that a smaller zigzag adds edge.
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 supported | 30 | Large +0.107R, Medium +0.076, Small-Medium +0.081 |
| 1-hour | Not tested: not tested yet: preset changes the setups themselves; needs TradingView runs (see tradingview_runs.md) | ||
| 4-hour | Not tested: not tested yet: needs TradingView runs (see tradingview_runs.md) | ||
| Daily | Not tested: not tested yet: needs TradingView runs (see tradingview_runs.md) | ||
- Hypothesis
- Smaller pattern-size presets multiply setups per instrument while keeping the edge (to fix the per-instrument sample-size problem).
- Method
- TradingView 15m, 30 instruments (every 16th of the list), preset changed via the study API.
- Result
- Large (Macro): 997 setups, +0.107R; Medium: 1,246, +0.076R; Small-Medium: 1,435, +0.081R (PF 1.13 -> 1.05); Small (Fast Scalp): 0 trades (rejected by the 10-bar minimum span).
- How much to trust it
- Medium: TV fills, but 30 instruments and differences within noise
- Did it change the live rule?
- Large (Macro) kept; it had already been made the default on 2026-09-09 (d9267fc) without saved evidence
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).