FAILED

Stochastic 14/3 (20/80)

A close at the extreme of the range shows exhaustion, and the crossing of the two lines confirms the turn — which avoids the RSI's mistake of signalling too early.

Measured in crypto — Binance spot · 540 pairs, delisted ones included · 0.2% per round trip

Net per trade

−1.28%

after fees

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

Died at

invariance

the result is not physically plausible

Worst drawdown

not measured

Equity was not measured for this claim.

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

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 2017-08-17 to 2026-07-28. It found trades in 522 coins, 9,473 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 81 of the 9,473. 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

-1.08% per trade. Look at the sign: the average is already negative before any fee is taken out. The controls below still hold, but here they are not knocking down an edge — they are confirming there never was one.

Why it did not pass — it died here · where the result came from

We look at where the result came from: whether it is spread across the trades or packed into a handful of them. It concentrated. That is the shape of a lottery: the typical trade loses, and a rare handful pays for everything. Anyone following the rule for real would face a long run of losses before any gain, and would almost certainly quit before it arrived.

What this result does NOT say

For an edge to be assertable here it would have to reach 4.54% 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 0.69% 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 522 spot cryptocurrency pairs, delisted ones included. 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 2017-08-17 to 2026-07-28. 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 0.10% per leg, in and out. 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 9,473 trades, but only 81 independent market episodes: a single move fires the technique across dozens of assets at once, and counting those as separate observations inflates any result. It is the smaller number that governs the arithmetic. With 81 episodes, what the data supports is a range from -21.35% to +19.19% 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	failed	—	—	—
costs	failed	-0.13	1.99	81
placebo	failed	-0.28	1.99	81
benchmark	failed	—	—	—
out of sample	inconclusive	—	—	—
multiple testing	inconclusive	—	—	—

invariance53% of the gross profit comes from 473 trades (5% of the total) — lottery
costsgross -1.076% · cost 0.200% · net -1.276% (t=-0.13)
placeboactual -1.276% · placebo +1.588% · excess -2.864% ± 10.349% (t=-0.28 against a threshold of 1.99, 81 real groups, 473,650 sham dates, draw error ±0.237%)
benchmarktechnique -1.28% · buy and hold (same horizon) +6.80% · excess -8.07%
out of sampleasset half A: -5.574% (t=-0.81, 80 groups) · asset half B: +2.837% (t=0.17, 80 groups) · period 1/4 (2017-09-29 a 2022-04-07): -0.308% (t=-0.02, 42 groups) · period 2/4 (2022-04-08 a 2024-03-02): -9.719% (t=-2.04, 18 groups) · period 3/4 (2024-03-03 a 2025-01-12): +4.193% (t=0.81, 9 groups) · period 4/4 (2025-01-13 a 2026-07-13): +0.653% (t=0.20, 15 groups)
multiple testing1 variation(s) tested · t=-0.13 across 81 episodes (equivalent to t=-0.12) · p≈0.9018 · false positives expected by chance ≈ 0.90

Reproducibility

period: 2017-08-17 to 2026-07-28
assets that traded: 522
variations tested before this one: 1
gross per trade: −1.08%
net per trade: −1.28%
exit rule: the technique itself (held until the opposite signal)
median duration bars: 40
mean duration bars: 68.1
max duration bars: 1236
fee per leg: 0.001
episode days: 40
period: 14
smoothing: 3
oversold: 20.0
overbought: 80.0

Binance spot klines (delisted pairs included) · collected from 2026-07-27 23:31 to 2026-07-28 14:29 · 540 assets · 750,934 bars · 2017-08-17 to 2026-07-28

Seed not recorded: audits before 2026-07-29 used 20260728 by convention in the code, and the value is not in the record.

Hypothesis, filed before the result

The stochastic is another question about the same price, and the specific promise is that the crossing of the two lines avoids the RSI's premature signal. Specific, falsifiable prediction: its fate is the same as the RSI's and the Bands' — the problem was never the TIMING of the signal, it was that there is no reversal left to capture after costs. If the stochastic survives where both died, my reading of the mechanism is wrong.

the filing date is not in this audit's record

The original, as it was filed

O estocástico é outra pergunta sobre o mesmo preço, e a promessa específica é que o cruzamento das duas linhas evita o sinal precoce do RSI. Previsão específica e falsificável: o destino é o mesmo do RSI e das Bandas — o problema nunca foi o MOMENTO do sinal, foi não haver reversão a capturar depois do custo. Se o estocástico sobreviver onde os dois morreram, minha leitura do mecanismo está errada.

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

Earlier audits of the same technique

Each variation an author teaches enters as its own test, so that whatever might work in the strategy gets covered. The verdict held in all of them.

2026-08-03FAILEDopen ↗
2026-08-03FAILEDopen ↗
2026-07-28FAILEDopen ↗
2026-07-28FAILEDopen ↗
this measurement →FAILED
2026-07-28FAILEDopen ↗