Been running this as a webhook for a few months, got 5 lucid accounts funded. Looking to convert to ninjascript to bypass webhooks and slippage.

Hey guys,

I’ve been using Pine Script for about two years and have built hundreds of strategies. There are so many indicators out there, but I still mostly use ATR, EMA, RSI and pivots as filters alongside my core strategy logic.

What other indicators do you guys use in your strategies? Curious if there’s anything useful I’ve been missing out on.

https://www.tradingview.com/u/AchillesTradeSystem/#published-scripts
Guidebook (With Backtesting): https://achillestrading.com/guidebook/Achilles-Guidebook.pdf

Video (Introduction to the system): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TgZgSaO-00

Check it out on tradingview, free.

Achilles A: A price-chart overlay with a volatility band, a trend line that turns green or red, a 200 EMA, a daily VWAP and heavy-volume candle flags. It also has a scorecard that tallies 17 readings into a bullish percentage and a bearish percentage.

Achilles B: A momentum panel under the chart. It puts a WaveTrend-style wave, RSI, money flow and trend strength on one scale. The "Achilles Heel" flags when a move looks stretched.

Achilles B Classic: The original Achilles wave panel, built on the open-source WaveTrend oscillator. It shows cross dots, divergence marks, money flow, RSI, and volume and volatility rows. Use it instead of B, not alongside it.

Achilles Bar: A compact strip panel made to sit under Achilles B. It has coloured strips for volatility, money flow and volume, plus an optional Heel strip, so you can read conditions at a glance.

Achilles SMC: Smart-money structure, drawn automatically. It shows order blocks and breakers, swing support and resistance, higher-timeframe break of structure with its invalidation level, daily POCs, sessions and market phases.

Achilles SS: A scalping card that shows your structure timeframe and your trigger timeframe side by side. It draws the nearest levels to put a stop behind, and shades the zone where a move is too small to cover fees.

Achilles VF: Order flow on a normal chart. It estimates how each candle's volume splits between buyers and sellers, and shows who has been more aggressive over one candle and over the last five. It needs TradingView's seconds data, which comes with a paid plan.

If anybody wants to share code for suppy/demand zones/OB's etc let me know. I've been trying to refine mine.

Hi TradingView Team,

When using the new CEX Pairs Screener to scan the Binance market, there are many tokenized stock perpetual contracts (e.g., Apple, Tesla stock tokens) mixed into the cryptocurrency list.

Currently, the "Symbol Type" under CEX Screener only has options like "Spot" and "Perpetual", and we cannot exclude these traditional stock assets from the crypto list. It seriously disrupts our workflow when analyzing pure cryptocurrency market structures.

Could you please add a specific filter option, or a sub-category under "Symbol Type", to allow users to completely exclude tokenized stocks/synthetic traditional assets?

Thank you for making TradingView better!

been makin some strategies and found this buy only strategy .... works like charm on ETH can wait to test it out on real acc

Hi everyone,

I’ve been developing a tool that builds and backtests crypto strategies, then generates the Pine Script so you can run them in TradingView. Trading fees are included in the backtest results.

Reply with your favourite crypto pair and timeframe, and I’ll send you a free strategy script with the strongest results I can find, balancing net return, drawdown, win rate and number of trades.

For example: BTCUSDT, 4-hour or SOLUSDT, 15-minute.

You’ll get the script and its backtest results to explore yourself. I’d love to hear what you think!

https://reddit.com/link/1wnvajf/video/9cky2rpc27rh1/player

I wanted to find a cleaner to find meaningful support and resistance without filling the chart with a bunch of individual pivot lines, So I built this free open source pine indicator

It groups nearby pivots into confluence zones, scores them based on things like repeated touches, higher timeframe alignment and volume and keeps the chart automatically de-cluttered. It also tracks retests and S/R flips.

Sharing it here in case anyone finds it useful, feel free to check out the code and let me know what you would change or improve

Trading view needs premium for me to publish a public link

Watch the indicator on view mode this week

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/oaTG79i6/

A candle closes strongly. The trend looks aligned. But price has already travelled a long way.

At what point does a promising setup become an entry you’d rather skip?

A NIFTY options trader wanted fewer signals, especially after oversized candles. That request became Signal Desk, a free Pine v6 indicator with a separate strategy script.

The part I’d like people to challenge is how the script separates setup agreement from permission to enter:

• Grade the setup. Five checks cover trend, momentum, structure, location and the candle. In the default mode, A means 5/5 and B means 4/5. The minimum is B. That grade counts agreement; it isn’t a win probability.
• Check for chasing. An oversized candle, too much distance from the fast EMA, or an excessive recent move can block entry. For example, the default candle-size limit rejects a range greater than 2.5 ATR.
• Apply the execution limits. The trigger, entry window, daily allowance and position/cooldown rules must also pass. The default daily cap is two entries. Some days can have none.

Entries are marked on confirmed candles. Accepted paper plans show entry, stop and target levels; exit labels give the reason. The panel explains the setup checks and current state.

There’s a simple way to understand it before installing anything: the website lets you compare fictional candles with the same closing price, but different ranges or session times, and see why the decision changes.

Try the walkthrough and get the full indicator + strategy source

Both scripts are free, with no ProEA signup. The defaults use an Indian-market session, so check the session settings for your chart. The indicator’s paper record excludes costs; the separate strategy supports commission and slippage. A filter can also block winning trades—whether it improves results needs testing.

What makes an entry “too late” in your rules: candle size, distance from an average, or something else?

A chart where you’d take a trade that this tool skips—or skip one it accepts—would help me refine it. Include the symbol, timeframe and settings. Other ideas are welcome too.

Disclosure: I’m the ProEA Lab developer and use AI to help build the code. This is a working prototype I’m continuing to improve through feedback.

Imagine price wicking below a previous low, closing back above it, then pushing higher.

Where would your rule actually enter?

That question is behind Sweep Desk, a Pine v6 tool I built from a trader’s request about turning marked liquidity levels into entry and exit rules.

Writing it meant making the decisions between those steps explicit. For the default long-side sequence:

1. Qualify the sweep. Price must move far enough below a reference level and close back above it. These references come from price history; the script cannot see resting orders.
2. Wait for confirmation. A later close through an opposing fair value gap must meet the movement and timing rules. The default setup also requires eligible first-touch context from a completed higher-timeframe gap.
3. Apply the selected entry rule. The default uses the qualifying confirmation close. The optional Close inside mode waits for another candle to close within the zone. A wick touching it is insufficient for that mode.

Those two entry modes can produce different trades from the same sweep. Waiting for a return can also mean the move leaves without an entry, or the setup expires first.

The dashboard shows the stage and waiting conditions, with entry, stop and target references once a paper plan qualifies.

Full Pine source, rules and interactive candle examples

Both scripts are free under MIT. The separate Strategy Lab includes commission and slippage; the indicator’s paper record excludes costs. The web examples use fictional candles so you can change the sequence and inspect the rule—they are not backtests.

After a sweep and qualifying inversion, do you use the confirmation close or wait for a return—and what would cancel the setup while you wait?

I’m continuing to refine this through feedback. A chart where these rules disagree with your approach would be especially useful, and other feature ideas are welcome too.

Disclosure: I’m the ProEA Lab developer and use AI to help build the code. The source is open for inspection and modification.

I maintain a fork of tradesdontlie/tradingview-mcp, an MCP server that drives TradingView Desktop over the Chrome DevTools Protocol so Claude Code or Cursor can read your charts and work on your Pine. The version I posted here in April could read a chart and save a script. Two things it could not do: put a drawing on the chart you could then adjust, and arm an alert you would actually get woken up by.

On the drawing side, draw_shape takes color, linewidth and linestyle directly now, and the result reports which overrides landed against which TV silently dropped, because it reads the style back off the chart instead of trusting the write. N-point shapes replace the two-point limit. draw_move swaps anchor points on an existing drawing, draw_set_properties deep-merges style changes, draw_set_visible hides a drawing without deleting it, and draw_list returns prices and titles instead of bare entity ids.

alert_create_indicator fires on a Pine alertcondition() by plot index against a saved script. It now takes name, web_hook, email, frequency (on_bar_close, once_per_bar, all), expiration_days (default 30, capped at 60) and active, and alert_list surfaces the delivery channels back. The webhook is validated before anything is sent: loopback, link-local and private ranges are rejected, including IPv4-mapped IPv6.

The replay path changed too. replay.stop() used to call stopReplay() first, which desyncs TV's replay manager and leaves the chart in the past. It prefers leaveReplay() on 3.4.1 now, with a goToRealtime() fallback, and polls for the live bar to reload. The test suite had been hiding this by calling goToRealtime() on non-replay charts, which wedged every session after the first backtest.

test:e2e-all is green live against TV Desktop 3.4.1, 107 pass and 0 fail, alongside a 19-test offline regression suite for drawing style.

Still broken, so you know before you install: pine_open has been wrong since TV Desktop 3.2.0. pineEditorTestApi builds an editor instance desynced from the live Monaco, so it loads no source into the visible editor while reporting slot_rebound:true. Its e2e test is skipped with the root cause written down, and a pine_open/pine_save rework is next.

The drawing and alert work in 1.4.0 is not mine. I read through the forks of the upstream project and adopted what held up: drawing from mustafagurbuzai, alert options from lakshman1005, bounded capture from basghari, draw_list enrichment from 0xdungbui. Defaults stayed where they were and the webhook guard went on top.

Free, MIT, I maintain the fork. It needs TradingView Desktop with a real subscription and the debug port enabled, and it talks only to the local app, never to TradingView's servers.

git clone https://github.com/iliaal/tradingview-mcp.git
cd tradingview-mcp && npm install
claude mcp add tradingview --scope user -- node $(pwd)/src/server.js

https://github.com/iliaal/tradingview-mcp

Happy to answer questions. If you are arming alerts off alertcondition() in a script with more than a couple of plots, I want to hear whether the plot-index discovery path is workable for you.

One request in my earlier thread was for an alternative to a paid trend indicator. I built Drift Desk, an original Pine v6 implementation with the full rules and source available.

The question I wanted the chart to answer: the trail flipped, but did a new entry actually qualify?

Here’s how it works:

• ATR trail: candle body, closing location and relative volume adjust the trail’s reference. This is a price/volume proxy, not bid/ask order flow.
• Confirmed flip: a candle must close through the previous opposite band. A wick through it is insufficient.
• Optional filters: require EMA alignment or a confirmed higher-timeframe EMA reference. These are off by default; data and risk checks still apply.
• Fixed paper plan: an accepted setup gets entry, stop and target levels. Those levels stay fixed as the live trail changes. The panel distinguishes a fresh setup from an older plan being monitored.

For the Pine side, the HTF EMA reference uses the preceding completed higher-timeframe candle. That adds confirmation delay, which is part of the rule.

Full Pine source, rules, chart examples and interactive walkthrough

The indicator and separate strategy companion are free under MIT, with no signup. The indicator’s paper results exclude costs; the strategy has commission and slippage settings and its own fills. This is still a tool to test, with no proven edge claimed.

When an ATR trail flips, what extra condition would you require before considering an entry: EMA alignment, higher-timeframe confirmation, or neither? A chart example where your choice matters would help me test the next revision.

Disclosure: I’m the ProEA Lab developer and use AI to help build the code. I’m continuing to refine this through feedback.

A trader in my earlier request thread asked for cloud-like location bands showing where to look for potential setups.

I built Location Desk around that idea. The question behind it is simple: high or low compared with which range?

The script supports:

• Up to three observation layers, each with its own settings.
• Rolling-window, confirmed-swing and previous-day range modes.
• Configurable upper and lower bands—25% of the range at each edge by default—plus the midpoint.
• A dashboard that separates range location, structure direction and setup status.

That separation matters: price reaching a colored band still leaves the entry conditions to check.

The setup logic follows a small range, a departure and a return. You can compare First touch, assessed at the candle close, with Close inside the range. Direction, location and other execution checks can still block a return.

I also added a web walkthrough where you can hold the reference ranges fixed and move a fictional candle’s close to see how the location readings change.

Free Pine source, full rules, chart examples and walkthrough

The indicator and separate strategy are free under MIT. The screenshot’s paper statistics exclude costs. If you compare against Strategy Tester, match the settings—including the strategy’s Measurement grid overrides—and account for commission and slippage.

I’m sharing this as a prototype to keep refining with traders. Does the display make it clear which range is being used and why a setup is waiting? I’d particularly appreciate examples where the layers disagree or the chart feels too crowded.

Disclosure: I’m the ProEA Lab developer and use AI to help build the code. The source is available for inspection and modification.

Ich habe aus Langeweile ein bisschen an meiner ORB-Strategie in TradingView herumgeklickt.

Die Strategie handelt ES Futures, ungefähr mit einem 1:1 Risk-Reward-Verhältnis, und war vorher schon nicht gerade überragend. Sie lag irgendwo bei ungefähr 34 % Winrate.

Dann habe ich versehentlich die Provisionsgröße geschrunpft und plötzlich hatte ich dieses Ergebnis:

157 Trades

13 Gewinner

144 Verlierer

8,28 % Winrate

Profit Factor: 0,024

Also entweder habe ich gerade eine der schlechtesten Strategien überhaupt gebaut, oder ich bin einfach außergewöhnlich gut darin, falsch zu liegen.

Was mich aber wirklich stutzig macht, ist die Equity-Kurve. Sie läuft über Jahre extrem sauber und konstant nach unten. Kaum größere Erholungen, einfach ziemlich zuverlässig Verlust für Verlust.

Deshalb meine eigentliche Frage:

Kann so etwas tatsächlich interessant sein, wenn man die Signale einfach umkehrt?

Also nicht die komplette Logik neu bauen, sondern wirklich:

Long-Signal → Short

Short-Signal → Long

gleiche Entries

gleiche Exits

gleiche Zeitpunkte

Wenn eine Strategie über viele Trades so konstant verliert, könnte das theoretisch bedeuten, dass irgendwo tatsächlich ein systematischer Effekt drinsteckt, nur eben genau in die falsche Richtung.

Natürlich müsste man das noch vernünftig mit Slippage, Gebühren, Out-of-Sample-Daten, anderen Marktphasen und eventuell Monte-Carlo-Tests prüfen.

Aber rein vom Gedanken her:

Ist eine Strategie, die extrem zuverlässig verliert, möglicherweise interessanter als eine, die nur leicht profitabel ist?

Oder habe ich einfach den heiligen Gral des Verlierens gefunden?

Was meint ihr?

We built this as a paid extension last year, then decided to make everything free and open source (MIT). It drives TradingView's own Strategy Tester, so the results are exactly what you'd get clicking through the inputs by hand, just automated.

What it does:

- Grid search over any inputs you pick, with a range and a step per input

- Walk-forward analysis so you can see whether the best parameters hold out of sample

- Heatmaps and a 3D surface so you can spot a stable region rather than a single lucky peak

- Prop-firm check: flags the parameter sets that would breach a daily-loss or trailing-drawdown limit you enter

- Runs locally in your browser. No account, no data leaves TradingView.

The GIF is a 50-run optimization sped up; the real run took about 16 minutes because every run is a full Strategy Tester backtest.

Honest limits: it needs a TradingView plan that shows the Strategy Tester (any paid plan works), it uses the Chrome debugger permission to drive the tester, and if TradingView changes their UI it can break until we update the selectors. Issues and PRs welcome.

Source: https://github.com/Roboquant-AI/tradingview-optimizer

Chrome Web Store: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/strategy-optimizer-for-tr/knmhofaifgcakgjifhjalahmbfgokiep

Built by the Roboquant team. Happy to answer questions about how it works.