Trading Auditor
← back to every claim
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 cryptoBinance spot · 540 pairs, delisted ones included · 0.2% per round trip

Net per trade
−1.03%
after fees
The fee is charged on both legs: every trade pays to open and pays to close.
Died at
costs
the 0.20% fee eats the whole edge
Worst drawdown
−99%
3,219 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 99% less than its own best previous moment, and it spent 3,219 days below that peak.

The technique against chance
Same number of trades, same holding time, same assets — only the dates were drawn at random.
0%barthe technique−1.03%random dates−0.44%
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.
0%mean−0.83%median−0.52%

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 540 coins, 44,922 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 320 of the 44,922. 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

-0.83% 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 · the broker's fee

We subtract the fee the broker charges to open and to close each trade — every trade pays on both legs. The edge existed on paper and vanished at that subtraction. A result that only survives without the fee does not survive in the real world.

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 0.01× what it started with. At its worst the account was worth 99% less than its own best previous moment, and it spent 3,219 days below that peak. In 12 of the 12 paths tested, the account fell to less than half of what it started with.

The account would not fit every signal

58% of the trades had to be turned down: by the time they appeared, the money was already tied up in other positions. That matters because the average return per trade the technique claims is computed over trades that nobody could have taken all of.

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 540 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 auditor's fixed horizon (10 bars). 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 44,922 trades, but only 320 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 320 episodes, what the data supports is a range from -2.12% to +0.46% 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

controlstatustthresholdepisodes
invariancepassed
costsfailed-1.581.97320
placebofailed-0.821.97320
benchmarkfailed
out of sampleinconclusive
multiple testingpassed
  • invariance44922 signals across 750934 bars
  • costsgross -0.834% · cost 0.200% · net -1.034% (t=-1.58)
  • placeboactual -1.034% · placebo -0.442% · excess -0.591% ± 0.722% (t=-0.82 against a threshold of 1.97, 320 real groups, 2,246,100 sham dates, draw error ±0.014%)
  • benchmarktechnique -1.03% · buy and hold (same horizon) +0.03% · excess -1.06%
  • out of sampleasset half A: -0.811% (t=-1.21, 304 episodes) · asset half B: -1.258% (t=-1.86, 318 episodes) · liquid half (>= US$ 2,066,613/day): -0.979% (t=-1.44, 320 episodes) · illiquid half: -1.092% (t=-1.67, 294 episodes) · period 1/4 (2017-09-29 a 2022-05-11): -2.514% (t=-2.25, 167 episodes) · period 2/4 (2022-05-12 a 2023-12-23): +0.472% (t=0.58, 60 episodes) · period 3/4 (2023-12-24 a 2025-05-24): -1.333% (t=-0.97, 53 episodes) · period 4/4 (2025-05-25 a 2026-07-18): -0.779% (t=-0.70, 43 episodes)
  • multiple testing1 variation(s) tested · t=-1.58 across 320 episodes (equivalent to t=-1.57) · p≈0.1166 · false positives expected by chance ≈ 0.12

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
×0.01
worst drawdown from the peak
99%
days below the previous peak
3,219
signals refused for lack of capital
58%
paths where the account halved (out of 12)
12

Reproducibility

period
2017-08-17 to 2026-07-28
assets that traded
540
variations tested before this one
1
gross per trade
−0.83%
net per trade
−1.03%
exit rule
the auditor's fixed horizon (10 bars)
horizon bars
10
fee per leg
0.001
episode days
10
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.

  1. 2026-08-03FAILEDopen ↗
  2. 2026-08-03FAILEDopen ↗
  3. this measurement →FAILED
  4. 2026-07-28FAILEDopen ↗
  5. 2026-07-28FAILEDopen ↗
  6. 2026-07-28FAILEDopen ↗

record 66ccdd8487f6 · 2026-07-28 23:38

This code comes from this card's content: if anything here changed after publishing, the code would stop matching — that's how a change gets caught. We audit the technique, never the person — no record names an author, a channel or a brand.

The full record behind this verdict. No seed (predates 2026-07-29): the placebo may not replicate.