FAILED

0.382 retracement (8% swing filter)

Price does not move in a straight line: after an advance it gives back a predictable fraction of the way before continuing. That fraction is not just any fraction — it is the ratio found in the nautilus shell, the pyramid of Giza and the arrangement of leaves — and buying exactly at it is buying at the point where the move starts again.

Measured in forex — EUR/USD and GBP/USD · daily bars built from 15m · 1 pip spread (~0.009% per round trip) · no survivorship bias

Net per trade

+3.41%

after fees

The fee is charged on both legs: every trade pays to open and pays to close.

Died at

multiple testing

chance alone would already produce a result like this

Worst drawdown

−0%

1,077 days underwater

How far the account fell below its own best previous moment.

Timeframe

1 day

The time grid this was measured on. The same technique on a coarser or finer grid is a different measurement, and can earn a different verdict.

invariance
costs
placebo
benchmark
out of sample
multiple testing

Equity curve

Risking 1.0% per trade, marked to market every day — not only when a trade closes. The line at 1.0 is the capital it started with.

At its worst the account was worth 0% less than its own best previous moment, and it spent 1,077 days below that peak.

The technique against chance

Same number of trades, same holding time, same assets — only the dates were drawn at random.

The average trade and the typical one

The mean sits BELOW the median: most trades win a little and the tail loses a lot. It is the lottery inverted, and no less dangerous — what decides the outcome is the rare loss.

What was measured

We coded the rule exactly as it is described and let it trade on its own from 2020-01-01 to 2026-06-26. It found trades in 2 coins, 4 in total. Each one enters and exits at the price that existed on that day — the program never sees what comes next, which is the most common mistake people make testing strategies at home. Wherever the description was ambiguous we took the reading least favourable to the technique; whatever was left open is stated in the hypothesis, at the foot of this page.

How many of those trades actually count

Only 4 of the 4. Cryptocurrencies rise and fall almost in unison, so the same rule fires on dozens of coins on the same day — and that is one bet repeated, not dozens of different bets. Counting them all separately is the trick that makes a bad test look impressive.

What it paid, before any deductions

+3.42% per trade. This is the number the technique claims, and the only one on this page that has not yet been through a single control.

Why it did not pass — it died here · how many versions were tested

We counted how many versions of the same idea were tested before this one was published. There were many. Publishing only the best of many versions is the same as flipping a coin repeatedly and reporting only the heads — and the result was not good enough to survive that discount.

What would have happened to the money

Risking 1.0% of capital per trade — the most widely taught rule — across the whole period: The capital would have ended at 1.00× what it started with. At its worst the account was worth 0% less than its own best previous moment, and it spent 1,077 days below that peak. In none of the 12 paths tested did it fall to less than half of what it started with.

What this result does NOT say

For an edge to be assertable here it would have to reach 0.65% per trade — that is the size that survives this archive's multiple-testing correction, and it rises as the archive grows. So FAILED means “we found nothing above that size”, and never “it cannot possibly work”. The instrument is far more sensitive than that: on synthetic data, with a clean effect, it separates from 0.09% upwards. The distance between the two numbers is the price of a real market and the price of publishing many claims. The difference matters, and it is the rule of this house: the card confronts the claim, never the person who made it.

What this card does not measure

Every verdict holds for the conditions it was measured under. These are this card's — and outside them the result does not apply.

One market, one universe: Measured on 2 spot currency pairs. It says nothing about futures, equities or indices, nor about how the same technique behaves in another market.
One window of time, not every window: The measured period runs from 2020-01-01 to 2026-06-26. A market moves through regimes, and a technique can work in one and fail in another — the card measures the regimes that fit inside this window, not the ones still to come.
One cost structure: The cost charged is a 1.0 pip spread, crossed once. Anyone paying more than that gets a worse result, and anyone paying less gets a better one — the verdict holds for this fee.
One exit rule: The trade was closed by: the technique itself (held until the opposite signal). The same entry measured with a different exit is a different strategy, and can earn a different verdict — it happens in this archive.
The number of trades is not the sample size: There are 4 trades, but only 4 independent market episodes: trades that overlap in time are not independent observations, and counting them as if they were inflates any result. It is the smaller number that governs the arithmetic. With 4 episodes, what the data supports is a range from -14.23% to +21.06% per trade — the published average is the centre of it, not the exact measurement.
Daily bars: Measured at the daily close. Nothing here measures what happens inside the day, and an intraday technique is not auditable with this data.

Numbers and reproducibility

The six controls

control	status	t	threshold	episodes
invariance	passed	—	—	—
costs	inconclusive	0.61	3.18	4
placebo	inconclusive	0.42	3.18	4
benchmark	passed	—	—	—
out of sample	inconclusive	—	—	—
multiple testing	failed	—	—	—

invariance4 signals across 4055 bars
costsgross +3.416% · cost 0.008% · net +3.408% (t=0.61) · the range runs from -14.238% to +21.055%
placeboactual +3.408% · placebo +1.014% · excess +2.394% ± 5.696% (t=0.42 against a threshold of 3.18, 4 real groups, 200 sham dates, draw error ±0.414%)
benchmarktechnique +3.41% · buy and hold (same horizon) +0.66% · excess +2.75%
out of sampleasset half A: +1.552% (3 episodes — too small, does not count) · liquid half (>= US$ 0/day): +3.408% (4 episodes — too small, does not count)
multiple testing6 variation(s) tested · t=0.61 across 4 episodes (equivalent to t=0.38) · p≈0.7050 · false positives expected by chance ≈ 4.23

Equity — outside the six controls, and here is why

The t of the trade series is invariant to bet size: 0.5%, 1% and 3% agree to the sixth decimal. Nothing here moves the verdict — it moves what the account would have lived through.

risking 1.0% per trade: ×1.00
worst drawdown from the peak: −0%
days below the previous peak: 1,077
signals refused for lack of capital: 0%
paths where the account halved (out of 12): 0

Reproducibility

period: 2020-01-01 to 2026-06-26
assets that traded: 2
variations tested before this one: 6
gross per trade: +3.42%
net per trade: +3.41%
exit rule: the technique itself (held until the opposite signal)
median duration bars: 144
mean duration bars: 166.2
max duration bars: 277
spread pips: 1.0
episode days: 168
seed: 20260728
fibonacci level: 0.382
fibonacci filter: 0.08

Twelve Data forex (15m aggregated to 1d) · collected on 2026-07-25 · 2 assets · 4,055 bars · 2020-01-01 to 2026-06-26

Hypothesis, filed before the result

The same technique at the complementary level, which the source presents as an alternative: «traders have used 0.382, the complement of 0.618, as a key retracement level». It is the control pair of the 0.618 and exists for that: if the golden ratio has anything special about it, it has to separate from its own complement. Same target and invalidation choices, same swept filter — the only thing that changes is the level. Family-level prediction, recorded before measuring: (1) NONE survives the corpus-wide Benjamini-Hochberg — part 74 measured that this requires ~3.94% per trade in crypto, and retracement techniques enter against the move, where the average effect is small by construction; (2) the gravedigger will be the PLACEBO, and not cost nor the invariant — this family's central claim is that specific levels (0.618, 0.382) matter, and the placebo is exactly the control that asks whether any level would have done the same; (3) the two retracements (0.618 and 0.382) will give results STATISTICALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from each other — if the golden ratio had anything special about it, it would separate from its own complement; (4) automated Elliott will do BETTER than the retracements, because it is a trend system in disguise (the 5 against 35 oscillator is a moving average crossover) and not a bet on a level. Prediction (4) is the one I would least like to confirm, and that is why it is written down. MEASURED IN FOREX (EUR/USD and GBP/USD, daily aggregated from 15m), and not in crypto. This is a pre-registered REPLICATION — not a new discovery —, and the multiple-testing count treats it as such. And there is one difference that matters especially to this family: the swing filter is a percentage, and a 5% filter that captures a two-day move in crypto captures a months-long one in forex. The same sweep measures structures of completely different sizes in the two markets, and that is why it is swept rather than fixed.

filed on 2026-08-04, before the number existed

The original, as it was filed

A mesma técnica no nível complementar, que a fonte apresenta como alternativa: «operadores usaram 0,382, o complemento de 0,618, como nível-chave de retração». ⚠️ É o par de controle da 0,618 e existe por isso: se a razão áurea tem algo de especial, ela precisa se separar da própria complementar. Mesmas escolhas de alvo e invalidação, mesmo filtro varrido — a única coisa que muda é o nível. Previsão da família, registrada antes de medir: (1) NENHUMA sobrevive ao Benjamini-Hochberg do corpus — a parte 74 mediu que isso exige ~3,94% por operação em cripto, e técnicas de retração entram contra o movimento, onde o efeito médio é pequeno por construção; (2) o coveiro será o PLACEBO, e não o custo nem o invariante — a alegação central desta família é que níveis específicos (0,618, 0,382) importam, e o placebo é exatamente o controle que pergunta se qualquer nível teria dado igual; (3) as duas retrações (0,618 e 0,382) darão resultados ESTATISTICAMENTE INDISTINGUÍVEIS entre si — se a razão áurea tivesse algo de especial, ela se separaria da sua própria complementar; (4) o Elliott automatizado irá MELHOR que as retrações, porque ele é um sistema de tendência disfarçado (o oscilador de 5 contra 35 é um cruzamento de médias) e não uma aposta num nível. ⚠️ A previsão (4) é a que eu menos gostaria de confirmar, e é por isso que ela está escrita. ⚠️ MEDIDO EM FOREX (EUR/USD e GBP/USD, diário agregado de 15m), e não em cripto. Isto é uma REPLICAÇÃO pré-registrada — não uma descoberta nova —, e a conta de múltiplos testes a trata como tal. ⚠️ E há uma diferença que importa especialmente a esta família: o filtro de oscilação é percentual, e um filtro de 5% que em cripto captura um movimento de dois dias, em forex captura um de meses. A mesma varredura mede estruturas de tamanhos completamente diferentes nos dois mercados, e é por isso que ela é varrida em vez de fixada.

Quotations from the source were translated from the Portuguese record and back into English — they are not the author's exact words.

Pre-registration exists to keep prediction apart from rationalisation: written after the number, every hypothesis is right.

This claim has been audited once — there is no history to compare against.