{"id":8858,"date":"2026-04-20T03:36:06","date_gmt":"2026-04-20T07:36:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.qatsystems.com\/analytics\/?page_id=8858"},"modified":"2026-04-20T03:36:16","modified_gmt":"2026-04-20T07:36:16","slug":"the-significance-of-the-idmm-levels","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.qatsystems.com\/analytics\/the-significance-of-the-idmm-levels\/","title":{"rendered":"The Significance of The IDMM Levels"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Research<\/p>\n

The Significance of the IDMM Levels<\/h1>\n

\n Evaluating how intraday behavior changes as defined structural levels are reached.\n <\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

Why the Levels Matter<\/h2>\n

\n Once the Intra-Day Momentum Method defines price levels relative to the Open, the next question is whether those levels are behaviorally significant.\n <\/p>\n

\n This research examines how often meaningful events occur once specific levels are reached, and how those relationships change under different structural conditions.\n <\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

ML1<\/h2>\n

\n The first area of study is the significance of the ML1 level.\n <\/p>\n

\n When ML1 was reached, the ETFs closed at or above ML1 57% of the time and at or above the Open 78% of the time, regardless of when the level was reached or how quickly the move occurred.\n <\/p>\n

\n Intra-day reversal behavior occurred 28% of the time when ML1 was reached.\n <\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

ML1 and MS1 Midpoint Relationship<\/h2>\n

\n The next step is to evaluate whether continuation changes when opposing midpoint structure is involved.\n <\/p>\n

\n When ML1 and the MS1 midpoint were reached in the same session, but MS1 was not reached, the ETFs closed above ML1 48% of the time.\n <\/p>\n

\n When ML1 was reached and the MS1 midpoint was not reached, the ETFs closed above ML1 81% of the time.\n <\/p>\n

\n This suggests that opposing midpoint interaction meaningfully affects directional continuation.\n <\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

MS1<\/h2>\n

\n The significance of the MS1 level shows a similar directional relationship on the downside.\n <\/p>\n

\n When MS1 was reached, the ETFs closed at or below MS1 54% of the time and below the Open 80% of the time.\n <\/p>\n

\n Intra-day reversal behavior occurred 32% of the time in these observations.\n <\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

MS1 and ML1 Midpoint Relationship<\/h2>\n

\n The ML1 midpoint relationship further clarifies the effect of opposing structure.\n <\/p>\n

\n When MS1 was reached and the ML1 midpoint had also been reached, the ETFs closed at or below MS1 53% of the time.\n <\/p>\n

\n When MS1 was reached and the ML1 midpoint was not reached, the ETFs closed at or below MS1 71% of the time.\n <\/p>\n

\n This again suggests that midpoint interaction influences continuation quality.\n <\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

ML1 to ML2 Relationship<\/h2>\n

\n The next layer of significance is whether initial structure leads to deeper continuation.\n <\/p>\n

\n If ML1 was reached, the market continued to ML2 35% of the time.\n <\/p>\n

\n If the session was not an intra-day reversal, continuation to ML2 increased to 44%.\n <\/p>\n

\n If the MS1 midpoint was not reached during the day, the ML2 level was reached 57% of the time.\n <\/p>\n

\n This shows that the significance of ML1 changes depending on broader structural context.\n <\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

MS1 to MS2 Relationship<\/h2>\n

\n A similar relationship appears on the downside.\n <\/p>\n

\n If MS1 was reached, the MS2 level was reached 41% of the time.\n <\/p>\n

\n If MS1 was reached and the ML1 midpoint was reached, continuation to MS2 increased to 52%.\n <\/p>\n

\n If MS1 was reached and the ML1 midpoint was not reached, continuation to MS2 increased to 62%.\n <\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

ML2 and MS2<\/h2>\n

\n Once ML2 was reached, the ETFs closed at or above ML1 92% of the time and at or above the Open 96% of the time.\n <\/p>\n

\n Once MS2 was reached, 98% of the ETFs closed at or below MS1, and all of them closed at or below the Open in the observed sample.\n <\/p>\n

\n This demonstrates that deeper extension carries stronger directional significance.\n <\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

ML3 and MS3<\/h2>\n

\n The third level extension reinforces this pattern.\n <\/p>\n

\n When ML3 was reached, the ETFs closed at or above ML3 71% of the time, and 100% of the observations closed above all lower reference levels and above the Open.\n <\/p>\n

\n When MS3 was reached, 82% closed below MS2, 94% closed below MS1, and all observations closed below the Open.\n <\/p>\n

\n This shows that the significance of the levels becomes stronger as movement extends further away from the Open.\n <\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

The Significance of the Extended Levels<\/h2>\n

\n Another question is how many extensions are actually needed to capture most intraday behavior.\n <\/p>\n

\n On the upside, once ML1 was reached, 64% of the time the High of the day was captured within two levels, and 92% of the time it was captured within three levels. Less than 2% of the data required a fourth extension.\n <\/p>\n

\n On the downside, once MS1 was reached, the Low of the day was captured 59% of the time within two levels, 84% within three levels, and 94% within four extensions. Only 1% of the data required a fifth extension.\n <\/p>\n

\n These observations demonstrate that price movement tends to remain within a measurable structural range.\n <\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

Interpretation<\/h2>\n

\n The significance of the IDMM levels is not that they predict exact outcomes with certainty.\n <\/p>\n

\n Their significance is that they create a measurable structure within which intraday behavior can be studied consistently.\n <\/p>\n

\n As price reaches deeper levels, continuation, reversal risk, and range behavior become more clearly defined.\n <\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

Ongoing Research<\/h2>\n

\n This is not a finished conclusion, but part of an ongoing research process.\n <\/p>\n

\n The same framework can continue to be used to study:\n <\/p>\n