London Open and Daily Trend

Profitsniper007

Active member
107 2
It is a rather common fallacy that New York City (Wall Street) is the financial capital of the world - it's not.

London is.

On the map, the whole of the UK is a mere blip, but none the less it host the finance capital of the world.

There are also other interesting things about the City of London but they are totally irrelevant and won't be discussed here.

At 8am GMT the London bells rings and the session that accounts for the largest volume in forex commences.

About 35% of the time London's opening range can mark the high/low of the day - if you work out the probability of this assuming that any time could be the high low of the day, this is a pretty staggering percentage, and certainly something noteworthy.

Very often when London is the high/low of the day, we will see a pull back later in the day and from here we can draw fibs extensions and pick out our targets.

I am not going to pour though loads of charts and examples here, if this interests you, you can do your own back testing and see how valid this is.

In this example, which I never actually seen or traded, there are 3 days.

One worked perfectly and two never worked (33% - though this is of course a tiny sample)

From the daily chart, there was a possible sell signal on this pair and if you had seen that and been looking for bearish trades, this would have been a very nice day for you. (Example that worked)

On almost any one hour chart you look at you will see times when 8am GMT was the H/L of the day, there are a few ways you can work a pretty easy to follow and high expectation strategy around that.

Do you own back testing, do your own diligence and if this is a new concept to you and you are interested in it, crack out a demo account and use some monopoly money to test and try before you put up real bucks.
 

Attachments

  • lon.PNG
    lon.PNG
    34.4 KB · Views: 129

Profitsniper007

Active member
107 2
that it is commonly believed that wallstreet is

Which it is.

Obviously if you google or ask someone in finance they will know.

Anyone with a reason to know, will know, if you polled a wide cross section of people results would be different.

I imagine even if you google it and find some forum post where the question is asked, there will be a lot of people who should know better that assume it's Wall Street.
 

Profitsniper007

Active member
107 2
Not going to waste time talking about one line in the thread that bares no real relevance to the actual point of the thread.

Will be back if anyone wants to discuss the London open.
 
M

member275544

0 0
Not going to waste time talking about one line in the thread that bares no real relevance to the actual point of the thread.

Will be back if anyone wants to discuss the London open.

thats the problem, though. If you open with a statement, that sets the tone for the rest. If you yourself believe that it holds no relevance to the thread, you should just leave it out that way then, we focus on the topic.
Its like saying, 95% of traders lose..or some other random %ge that people spring out of thin air just because they might also be misinformed.
And besides, that same point about the london open was made by someone in the forex space..it will just set someone down a garden path and im sure as a coach you wouldn't want that
 

Profitsniper007

Active member
107 2
thats the problem, though. If you open with a statement, that sets the tone for the rest.

I think the problem is something else entirely - but time is too precious a commodity to spend on such trivial matters in my opinion. How others chose to spent theirs is entirely their choice.

it will just set someone down a garden path and im sure as a coach you wouldn't want that

This, on the other hand, is worth discussing since it pertains to trading (the intended purpose of the forum) and also pertains to the thread.

I assume that by this statement, you have been through this theory previously, back tested it and found that the London open theory to be false.

Please can you validate this statement by telling me a 10 day period on any pair that you have observed that the London open has not been highly significant once?

Or quantify your statement in some other way, rather than nakedly just saying it is wrong?
 
Last edited:

Profitsniper007

Active member
107 2
Since I actively monitor this, I can tell you, you will find it pretty hard to find 3 days in a row where the market did not side trend though out that whole period where 8am GMT was not the H/L of the day.

So, even on the smallest possible sample, the percentage I said is valid to within a couple percentage points.

I am open to learning if you can educate me on how I am mistaken though.
 
M

member275544

0 0
Please can you validate this statement by telling me a 10 day period on any pair that you have observed that the London open has not been highly significant once?

Or quantify your statement in some other way, rather than nakedly just saying it is wrong?
adjusted the typos for you..I've done mine thanks
Do your own back testing, do your own due diligence
 
M

member275544

0 0
So, rather than validate the statement you fall back on typos - I stand corrected ... I will make sure I take more time to check my typos on the next London open before making a trading decision lol.

having first done your own back testing, I would advise :D
 

Profitsniper007

Active member
107 2
having first done your own back testing, I would advise :D

We very almost actually got into a conversation about actually trading ... we got dangerously close there for a second.

Then it just descended back into childish nonsense again.

So again, I have better things to do with my time, maybe someone will actually want to talk about why this theory is right or wrong, and I will be back.

If not, have fun looking for typos or irrelevant things to make pointless comments on. Everyone needs a hobby.
 
M

member275544

0 0
We very almost actually got into a conversation about actually trading ... we got dangerously close there for a second.

Then it just descended back into childish nonsense again.

So again, I have better things to do with my time, maybe someone will actually want to talk about why this theory is right or wrong, and I will be back.

If not, have fun looking for typos or irrelevant things to make pointless comments on. Everyone needs a hobby.

I agree, this is complete nonsense.
you say 35% of the time something works by giving a sample size of 3
you then ask others to their own backtesting, and ask me to provide you with over 3 times your own sample size to prove you wrong..
childish indeed. do you want to start this thread again?
 
 
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock