FAILED

Fractional entry in 5 tranches every 1 day(s) (80-day average)

Entering all at once stakes everything on a single price, which may be the worst of the move. Spreading the entry into tranches over a few days makes the price paid an average of several — replacing the uncertainty of a single entry with a steadier figure, without abandoning the direction the trend indicates.

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

−0.13%

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

−0%

1,368 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 1,368 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 above the median: the lottery signature — the typical trade loses and a rare handful pays for everything.

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, 212 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 104 of the 212. 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

-0.13% 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. To give the measure: 72% of the profit came from the top 5% of trades, and the same technique with its dates shuffled would concentrate 48%. The control fails above 50%.

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 1,368 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, entering in tranches (weighted average price). 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 212 trades, but only 104 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 104 episodes, what the data supports is a range from -0.33% to +0.08% 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	inconclusive	-1.32	1.98	104
placebo	failed	-1.84	1.98	104
benchmark	failed	—	—	—
out of sample	failed	—	—	—
multiple testing	inconclusive	—	—	—

invariance72% of the gross profit comes from 10 trades (5% of the total) — lotteryconcentration: +71.64% of the profit sits in the top 5% of trades — with the dates shuffled, +48.45% (fails above +50.00%)
costsgross -0.126% · cost 0.008% · net -0.135% (t=-1.32) · the range runs from -0.337% to +0.067%
placeboactual -0.135% · placebo +0.056% · excess -0.190% ± 0.104% (t=-1.84 against a threshold of 1.98, 104 real groups, 10,600 sham dates, draw error ±0.017%)
benchmarktechnique -0.13% · buy and hold (same horizon) +0.05% · excess -0.18%
out of sampleasset half A: -0.230% (t=-1.89, 69 episodes) · asset half B: -0.019% (t=-0.09, 64 episodes) · liquid half (>= US$ 0/day): -0.135% (t=-1.32, 104 episodes) · period 1/4 (50256253-02-11 a 52000299-11-17): -0.065% (t=-0.28, 27 episodes) · period 2/4 (52008513-08-07 a 54179673-11-08): -0.017% (t=-0.06, 26 episodes) · period 3/4 (54212528-09-27 a 55751232-06-23): -0.049% (t=-0.30, 27 episodes) · period 4/4 (55792301-01-31 a 56465826-03-17): -0.400% (t=-4.93, 25 episodes)
multiple testing5 variation(s) tested · t=-1.32 across 104 episodes (equivalent to t=-1.31) · p≈0.1915 · false positives expected by chance ≈ 0.96

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: 1,368
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: 5
gross per trade: −0.13%
net per trade: −0.13%
exit rule: the technique itself, entering in tranches (weighted average price)
measured return: per unit of position opened — NOT weighted by capital allocated
median duration bars: 3
mean duration bars: 18.3
max duration bars: 221
spread pips: 1.0
episode days: 7
seed: 20260728
tranche spacing: 1
tranches: 5
slope period: 80

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 first of the three choices on p. 1076: instead of «buying the entire amount at the time of the signal», one «averages into the position». The rule is given precisely: «the test will always look at entering 5 contracts (or, in stocks, 5 shares), spaced 1 to 5 days apart». The «5×2» notation of Table 23.9 means 5 contracts entered 2 days apart; the slowest case enters on days 1, 6, 11, 16 and 21. THE SPACING IS A PUBLISHED SEARCH OPTIMUM: the source sweeps 1 to 5 days and concludes «if we chose to wait 2 days between each of the entry orders, all three markets would show improvement» — it enters as a SWEEP of 5 values, and that is the N control 6 charges. THE PARTIAL FILL IS PART OF THE RULE: «if the trend changes direction before the entire position is set, then the loss on the trade will be less than if you had entered all contracts on day 1». Different trades carry different numbers of units. AUDITED BY THE AVERAGE ENTRY PRICE, and the battery weighs every trade equally — we do not reproduce the source's «Ratio» column, which is «the total profit divided by the investment». AND THE SOURCE ITSELF DISALLOWS THE GENERALISATION: «it will be very difficult to generalise these results to all systems... the total time to enter should be proportional to the speed of the trend or the average holding period of the trade». Family-level prediction, recorded before measuring: (1) NONE survives the corpus-wide Benjamini-Hochberg; (2) the FRACTIONAL ENTRY and the two PYRAMIDS ON PROFIT will move the mean by LESS THAN THE ERROR BAR and will NARROW the deviation — it is the mechanism the protocol has already measured twice, at breakeven (median from −2.75% to 0.00%, mean unchanged) and at partial profit taking (−0.023% ± 0.518%, deviation from 19.9% to 12.4%): position management moves the SHAPE and is read as if it had moved the CENTRE; (3) the EQUITY CURVE GATE fails, and for lack of autocorrelation — this is the family's most falsifiable prediction, because the number already exists in the corpus: the source states that «first one must find out whether returns are positively autocorrelated», and `confirmacoes.py` publishes, over 742,175 crypto days, that daily direction is a coin flip WITH NO MEMORY; (4) AVERAGING DOWN will be the worst in the family and will die at CONTROL 1, concentration, because adding to losses fattens the tail — and the source itself already rejects it in 3 of 4 markets; (5) the gravedigger in crypto will be CONTROL 1 and not the benchmark, which is the correction of the prediction refuted in part 76 and what part 74 had already established: in crypto, what pays a lot pays it concentrated; (6) the 80-day BASE will do better than any layer built on top of it. 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 to this family: waiting for a better price is measured in multiples of the asset's own true range, so it adapts to the market by construction — but a pullback that happens every week in crypto may be rare in a currency pair, and the 5-day window is the same in both.

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

The original, as it was filed

A primeira das três escolhas da p. 1076: em vez de «comprar o valor inteiro no momento do sinal», «faz-se média para dentro da posição». A regra é dada com precisão: «o teste vai olhar sempre a entrada de 5 contratos (ou, em ações, 5 papéis), espaçados de 1 a 5 dias». A notação «5×2» da Tabela 23.9 significa 5 contratos entrados com 2 dias de intervalo; o caso mais lento entra nos dias 1, 6, 11, 16 e 21. ⚠️ O ESPAÇAMENTO É ÓTIMO DE BUSCA PUBLICADO: a fonte varre 1 a 5 dias e conclui «se escolhêssemos esperar 2 dias entre cada uma das ordens de entrada, os três mercados mostrariam melhora» — entra como VARREDURA de 5 valores, e é esse o N que o controle 6 cobra. ⚠️ O PREENCHIMENTO PARCIAL É PARTE DA REGRA: «se a tendência mudar de direção antes de a posição inteira estar montada, então a perda na operação será menor do que se você tivesse entrado com todos os contratos no dia 1». Operações diferentes carregam número diferente de unidades. ⚠️ AUDITADA PELO PREÇO MÉDIO DE ENTRADA, e a bateria pesa todas as operações igual — não reproduzimos a coluna «Ratio» da fonte, que é «o lucro total dividido pelo investimento». ⚠️ E A PRÓPRIA FONTE DESAUTORIZA A GENERALIZAÇÃO: «será muito difícil generalizar estes resultados para todos os sistemas... o tempo total para entrar deveria ser proporcional à velocidade da tendência ou ao período médio de manutenção da operação». Previsão da família, registrada antes de medir: (1) NENHUMA sobrevive ao Benjamini-Hochberg do corpus; (2) a ENTRADA FRACIONADA e as duas PIRÂMIDES SOBRE LUCRO moverão a média por MENOS QUE A BARRA DE ERRO e ESTREITARÃO o desvio — é o mecanismo que o protocolo já mediu duas vezes, no breakeven (mediana de −2,75% para 0,00%, média parada) e na realização parcial (−0,023% ± 0,518%, desvio de 19,9% para 12,4%): gestão de posição mexe no FORMATO e é lida como se tivesse mexido no CENTRO; (3) o GATE PELA CURVA DE PATRIMÔNIO reprova, e por falta de autocorrelação — esta é a previsão mais falsificável da família, porque o número já existe no corpus: a fonte declara que «primeiro é preciso descobrir se os retornos são positivamente autocorrelacionados», e `confirmacoes.py` publica, em 742.175 dias de cripto, que a direção diária é cara-ou-coroa SEM MEMÓRIA; (4) a MÉDIA PARA BAIXO será a pior da família e morrerá no CONTROLE 1, concentração, porque adicionar nas perdas engorda a cauda — e a própria fonte já a reprova em 3 de 4 mercados; (5) o coveiro em cripto será o CONTROLE 1 e não o benchmark, que é a correção da previsão refutada na parte 76 e o que a parte 74 já tinha estabelecido: em cripto, o que rende muito rende concentrado; (6) a BASE de 80 dias irá melhor que qualquer camada sobre ela. ⚠️ 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 a esta família: a espera por preço melhor é medida em múltiplos da amplitude real do próprio ativo, então ela se adapta ao mercado por construção — mas um repique que em cripto acontece toda semana pode ser raro num par de moedas, e a janela de 5 dias é a mesma nos dois.

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.

The same technique in the other market

The verdict held in the other market too, on independent data.

forexFAILED← this one
cryptoFAILEDopen that card

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