forex-scalping.com

Custom timeframes like M2, M3 and M10: when the standard ones don't fit

Most platforms give you M1, M5, M15, M30 and H1. MT5 and TradingView also let you use in-between timeframes like M2, M3, M10 or M20. A lot of people never touch them, but they can solve a specific problem.

If M1 is too noisy for your entries and M5 is too slow, M2 or M3 sits in between. Structure is clearer than on M1, but you still see moves developing faster than on M5. Same idea with M10 between M5 and M15.

There are a few downsides. Fewer people watch these timeframes, so levels and candle closes on them don't carry the same weight as M5 or M15 closes. If your strategy depends on reacting to what other traders see, standard timeframes make more sense.

Data can also be an issue. Some platforms build custom timeframes from M1 data, and history might be limited. Indicators that rely on longer lookbacks can behave strangely at the start of the chart.

For EAs, MT5 supports these timeframes natively, so you can test on them. MT4 needs offline charts or custom indicators, which are fiddly.

I think they're an easy experiment for entry timing if you feel stuck between two timeframes. For marking levels and context, I'd stay with the standard ones that most people use.

One subtle point is candle alignment. An M3 chart starts its candles at fixed points in the hour, but the hour doesn't divide evenly by every custom timeframe. M7 candles, for example, won't line up with the start of each hour, so the candle that contains the London open might start a few minutes before or after it. That can make session based analysis messy. Timeframes that divide the hour evenly, like M2, M3, M4, M6, M10, M12, M20, avoid that problem and keep candles aligned with session times. For anything session based, those are the ones I'd use.

If you use a custom timeframe for entries, I'd still check the standard M5 or M15 close before committing. The custom timeframe might show a break that the M5 candle hasn't confirmed yet. That isn't necessarily a problem, since the point is earlier timing, but knowing where the M5 candle is helps avoid entering just before an M5 candle closes back the other way. The custom chart gives detail, the standard one gives context, and using both keeps you honest. Checking the M5 candle takes a second and avoids a lot of entries that look early for good reason.

M2 and M3 can be a good compromise between M1 noise and M5 lag. For scalpers whose setups need a few candles to form, M3 often shows the structure more clearly than M1 without waiting as long as M5.

The disadvantage is that fewer traders use these timeframes, so levels from them may be less meaningful to the market. They work best for timing entries, with levels taken from standard timeframes.

Data storage is a practical issue with custom timeframes on MT4. The platform doesn't store custom timeframes natively, so they're usually built by a script or an offline chart generator from M1 data. If the script stops or the platform restarts, the chart might freeze or fall behind without any obvious warning. I'd check that the custom chart's last candle matches the current time regularly, especially after a restart. On MT5 and TradingView, custom timeframes are built in, which avoids most of this trouble. A small clock comparison on the chart corner makes that check almost automatic.

Indicators can behave differently on custom timeframes because of the number of bars per day. An M3 chart has five times as many bars per day as M15, so a 20 period moving average covers a much shorter span of time. If you copy indicator settings from a standard timeframe, they won't mean the same thing. Converting periods by time, for example a 20 period average on M15 roughly equals a 100 period one on M3, keeps the meaning consistent. It's an easy step to forget when experimenting with new timeframes.