A trader asked for an engulfing strategy with volume confirmation and two ways to enter: a break of the previous candle’s high/low, or a retest of its range.

This as a free, open-source tool. You can find the script and the full testing write-up here:

• Engulfing Volume Desk — free script and source
• Full test results — including the losing period

Built it as a Pine v6 strategy. Here’s how it works:

• Aggressive — default: entry one tick beyond the previous candle’s high/low. If the signal candle has already closed beyond that level, entry is at the next bar’s open.
• Retest: a limit order halfway into the previous candle’s range.
• Both: enables both entries and splits the setup’s risk budget equally between them.
• Risk: stop beyond both candles, a 2R target, and default risk of 0.5% per setup.
• Volume grading: Low / Medium / High, using relative volume against the previous 20 bars.

The interesting part was testing what those volume labels actually meant.

The request originally described low-, medium-, and high-probability setups. But the tests didn’t support treating those RVOL grades as win probabilities.

On OANDA:XAUUSD 4H, the 2025–26 development period was profitable, while a separate 2023–24 period lost with the same settings and trading-cost assumptions. The earlier period lost even before overnight financing. High-volume shorts were its biggest losing group.

That’s why the panel says “Volume strength only · Probability untested.” The grade describes the signal candle’s volume; these results don’t establish that a higher grade gives a better trade.

Retest entries also failed the research criteria I used, so they’re available as an option but disabled by default.

For those who have built similar strategies in Pine: how would you test whether RVOL adds predictive value to an engulfing setup? I’m particularly interested in comparisons against an unfiltered baseline, and how you handle the smaller samples after splitting trades by direction and volume grade.

Screenshot note: numbers beside the order marks are position sizes in oz, not profit. Some adjacent order labels overlap in the native TradingView chart.

A trader in my earlier thread asked for an envelope built from a profile’s value-area boundaries. I built Value Envelope from that idea, with the Pine source available to inspect and modify.

It plots:

• POC: the price row with the most estimated activity.
• Value-area edges: a band containing 70% of the profile’s estimated weight by default.
• The band’s movement over time: using a rolling window or an anchored period.

One detail matters: this estimates activity from candle data by distributing each candle’s volume across price rows. It doesn’t have individual trade prints at each price.

It also tracks how price leaves and returns to the band. The default acceptance rule needs three consecutive closes outside on the same side. After that, two consecutive closes back inside trigger the re-entry label. Each candle is compared with its own recalculated band.

The website’s walkthrough lets you change a fictional candle’s close and volume. The same closing price can change its position relative to value because the band itself moves.

Free indicator, MIT Pine source and interactive walkthrough

For anyone learning the terminology, we also have ProEA Academy. Under Free tools, choose the free Volume Profile Lite introduction for POC and value-area basics. It uses a simplified teaching example. Academy also has simulated drills; some activities require sign-in.

One clarification about the chart: “80%” names the re-entry rule; it is not an 80% success rate. This tool provides context for rules you still need to test.

I’d like feedback on one design choice: when price returns inside, would you compare it with the updating value area, or freeze the boundaries from the earlier move outside? A chart example would help me test that variation.

Disclosure: I’m the ProEA Lab developer and use AI to help build the code. I’m continuing to refine these prototypes from user feedback.

A trader in r/pinescript asked for an opening-range breakout tool. I built Opening Range Desk, then added a candle simulator so people could challenge the entry rules before installing the script.

The idea is simple: move the candle and make the tool explain its decision.

The website lets you change the final close, wick length and confirmation count using fictional candles. You can see which condition changes as the example moves between waiting and entry.

On TradingView, the default builds the 9:30–9:45 a.m. New York range and requires two consecutive closes beyond the edge and configured buffer. A wick outside doesn’t qualify. Optional retest mode waits for a later return after breakout confirmation.

The checklist shows what’s missing. The chart also draws paper entry, stop and target references, and there’s a separate strategy for testing with commission and slippage.

The indicator, strategy, source and guide are free under MIT.

👉 Opening Range Desk — try the simulator, read the guide and get the source

Start with “Try the idea”, then “Read your chart.” The page also includes lab notes with losing results; this remains a prototype to evaluate.

Show me a breakout that passes these rules but that you would still skip. What makes you reject it?

A symbol, timeframe, date/time and chart example would give me something specific to investigate. You can reply here or use “The log & requests” on the page.

I’m the developer at ProEA Lab and used Codex for coding assistance. I’d like the next improvements to come from the cases people actually disagree with.

After sharing IFVG Desk and Camarilla Desk, I worked on another request from the original thread: a Wyckoff stage-analysis tool. Leo shared a detailed outline, and I’ve now built a first version called Wyckoff Evidence Desk.

The question behind this version is: what evidence supports each interpretation while the range is still forming?

It tracks accumulation and distribution separately, using price, volume and phase-transition rules. Each side shows its range, latest event, evidence score and setup status.

The attached MNQ 5-minute chart is a useful example. Distribution has the higher score, but both setup rows still say WAIT. The score reflects the script’s evidence rules; it isn’t a probability of winning. The last candle in this capture is still live, and events wait for the close.

A few details you can inspect in the source:

• A Spring or UTAD is optional; the rules also allow a range to progress without one.
• Breakout acceptance requires two consecutive closes beyond the boundary allowance.
• A qualifying backup needs a later return and its remaining checks to pass.
• Failed structures receive an INVALID event and a reason.

This is a prototype covering selected Wyckoff ideas. It doesn’t reproduce every part of the original proposal. The Strategy Lab’s small development sample lost money, so I haven’t established a trading edge.

Download the complete Base Pine source. Base uses standard candles and available volume; it doesn’t require the separate Footprint edition.

If you use Wyckoff, where would you disagree with these labels or phase transitions? I’d appreciate a chart example with the symbol, timeframe, timestamp and what you expected to see. That gives me a specific case to investigate.

I’m the developer at ProEA Lab and used Codex for coding assistance. Thanks to Leo for the original suggestion, and to anyone willing to review the rules.

One request in my earlier thread was pretty specific: could I build a Camarilla tool that highlights which plays are active?

I’ve built Camarilla Desk around that question. It’s a free, open-source prototype for TradingView, and I’d like feedback from people who already use Camarilla in their trading.

The goal is to make the sequence easier to follow: watch the level → check the conditions → wait for confirmation.

What it does:

• Shows a seven-level Camarilla map with the source and session context visible.
• Tracks 14 named plays, separating Candidate, Approaching, Armed and Active, with explanations for blocked or waiting states. The final two plays are optional and start off.
• Keeps the original entry, stop and target references once a play activates, with markers showing how that episode ended.
• Lets you inspect and test the rules, with full Pine source, alerts and a separate Strategy Lab for simulated orders and costs.

ACTIVE means the play has met this script’s confirmation rules. It doesn’t establish that the trade will work. A quiet chart with no qualifying setup can be the correct result.

This is my own implementation of public Camarilla ideas. I haven’t verified that it matches any paid indicator’s private rules.

👉 Camarilla Desk — free source, examples and guide

Start with “Try the candle” to explore an L3 bounce, a break-and-retest, or an H4 failure. “Read the real chart” explains the display, “Full reference” has all the play rules, and “Add the tool” has the code. The indicator, Lab and guide are free, with no signup needed.

Which Camarilla play do you use most, and does the tool explain clearly why it’s waiting or active?

If it reads a setup differently from you, a screenshot with the symbol, timeframe, date/time and pivot source would help. Tell me what you expected to happen. Reply here, or use “Log & requests” on the page for bugs and feature ideas.

I’m the developer behind ProEA Lab and use OpenAI Codex for coding assistance. The source is open for review and modification.

Thanks to the trader who suggested this. I’d like to keep improving it around examples from your actual charts.

Hey everyone, following up on my earlier thread, where I asked which paid indicators you’d like free, open-source alternatives to.

An IFVG dashboard was one of the requests. I’ve now built IFVG Desk, and I’d love some feedback from people who actually trade these setups.

I’m still treating it as a working prototype. It’s my own implementation of public IFVG concepts; I can’t claim it matches anyone’s private indicator.

Here’s what you can try:

• Follow a gap through its inversion, with entries on the confirming close or a later retest and rejection.
• See a paper trade plan: entry, a stop beyond the prior swing, and an adjustable fixed-R target.
• Understand why an entry qualifies or gets blocked. The dashboard shows higher-timeframe context and individual checks. Additional filters are optional; only the New York session check is required by default.
• Test the rules yourself with the separate strategy companion, including commission and slippage settings.

The indicator, strategy companion, full source and guide are all free. No signup is needed.

👉 IFVG Desk — source, examples and guide

I put time into explaining the rules for traders. Start with “Try the idea”, then “Read your chart.” “Go deeper” covers the settings and limitations, and “Get the indicator” has the code and installation steps.

If you try it, what feels useful, confusing or missing? A screenshot with your symbol, timeframe, date/time and settings — plus what you expected versus what happened — would really help.

Reply here, or use “The log & requests” on the page to report a bug or suggest a feature. If it doesn’t fit how you trade IFVGs, tell me where it falls short.

My goal is to make this useful in your actual trading. Whether it improves results after costs still needs testing; I’m not claiming a proven edge. Start in replay or paper trading and let me know what you find.

For transparency, I’m the developer behind ProEA Lab and used AI assistance in the build. The source is open for review and modification.

Thanks to everyone who shared an idea. There’s plenty left to improve, and your examples can help decide what comes next.