Validated structure with zone (R:R 2.5) · breakeven by structure
Tying breakeven to structure, rather than to a multiple of risk, gives the best chance of staying in the winning trade and still getting out flat when the structure is invalidated.
Measured in crypto — Binance spot · 540 pairs, delisted ones included · 0.2% per round trip
- ✗invariance
- ?costs
- ?placebo
- ✓benchmark
- ?out of sample
- ?multiple testing
At its worst the account was worth 20% less than its own best previous moment, and it spent 1,704 days below that peak.
What was measured
How many of those trades actually count
What it paid, before any deductions
Why it did not pass — it died here · where the result came from
What would have happened to the money
What this result does NOT say
- One market, one universe
- Measured on 399 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: stop or target, whichever comes first. 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 1,411 trades, but only 279 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 279 episodes, what the data supports is a range from -1.74% to +4.65% 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 | 0.77 | 1.97 | 279 |
| placebo | inconclusive | -0.03 | 1.97 | 279 |
| benchmark | passed | — | — | — |
| out of sample | inconclusive | — | — | — |
| multiple testing | inconclusive | — | — | — |
- invariance71% of the gross profit comes from 70 trades (5% of the total) — lotteryconcentration: +71.33% of the profit sits in the top 5% of trades — with the dates shuffled, +91.35% (fails above +50.00%)
- costsgross +1.455% · cost 0.200% · net +1.255% (t=0.77) · the range runs from -1.943% to +4.454%
- placeboactual +1.255% · placebo +1.315% · excess -0.060% ± 1.822% (t=-0.03 against a threshold of 1.97, 279 real groups, 70,148 sham dates, draw error ±0.204%) — the status flips inside the placebo's own Monte Carlo error
- benchmarktechnique +1.26% · buy and hold (same horizon) +0.36% · excess +0.90%
- out of sampleasset half A: +0.274% (t=0.62, 228 episodes) · asset half B: +2.275% (t=1.09, 229 episodes) · liquid half (>= US$ 1,931,830/day): +1.763% (t=0.87, 221 episodes) · illiquid half: +0.801% (t=1.22, 217 episodes) · period 1/4 (2017-10-18 a 2022-12-29): +0.318% (t=0.08, 116 episodes) · period 2/4 (2022-12-31 a 2023-10-15): +1.083% (t=0.63, 38 episodes) · period 3/4 (2023-10-16 a 2025-06-12): -0.310% (t=-0.25, 74 episodes) · period 4/4 (2025-06-13 a 2026-07-27): +3.937% (t=3.36, 54 episodes)
- multiple testing1 variation(s) tested · t=0.77 across 279 episodes (equivalent to t=0.77) · p≈0.4418 · false positives expected by chance ≈ 0.44
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
- ×1.19
- worst drawdown from the peak
- −20%
- days below the previous peak
- 1,704
- signals refused for lack of capital
- 0%
- paths where the account halved (out of 12)
- 0
Reproducibility
- period
- 2017-08-17 to 2026-07-28
- assets that traded
- 399
- variations tested before this one
- 1
- gross per trade
- +1.46%
- net per trade
- +1.26%
- exit rule
- stop or target, whichever comes first
- median duration bars
- 2
- max duration bars
- 853
- intrabar ambiguity
- 0.1
- fee per leg
- 0.001
- episode days
- 7
- seed
- 20260728
- min reward-to-risk
- 2.5
- min impulse
- 0.05
- max consolidation
- 0.03
- zone window
- 40
- management
- breakeven by structure
- confirmation bars
- 5
Binance spot klines (delisted pairs included) · collected from 2026-07-27 23:31 to 2026-08-03 10:49 · 540 assets · 750,934 bars · 2017-08-17 to 2026-07-28
Hypothesis, filed before the result
Fourth transcript, and the first on POSITION MANAGEMENT. An explicit comparative claim: moving the stop to breakeven after a three-wave structure is confirmed (impulse, correction, impulse to a new high) is BETTER than the common rule of going to breakeven at 2R, because the latter takes the trader out of winning trades too early. Testable with the same entry and three management rules. Specific predictions, written before any number: (a) BOTH breakeven rules will LOWER the average return relative to using no breakeven at all, because the base technique has 71% of its profit in 5% of the trades and breakeven kills the tail — the big winners usually come back to the entry point before they run; (b) the structural rule will lower it LESS than the 2R rule, which is his claim, because it waits longer before tightening; (c) the verdict does not change: it stays FAILED at invariance, because exit management does not fix profit concentration.
filed on 2026-07-28, before the number existed
The original, as it was filed
Quarta transcrição, e a primeira de GESTÃO DE POSIÇÃO. Alegação comparativa e explícita: mover o stop para o zero a zero após confirmação de estrutura em três ondas (impulso, correção, impulso a nova máxima) é MELHOR que a regra comum de ir a breakeven em 2R, porque esta última tira o operador cedo demais de operações vencedoras. Testável com a mesma entrada e três gestões. Previsões específicas, escritas antes de qualquer número: (a) AS DUAS regras de breakeven vão BAIXAR o retorno médio em relação a não usar breakeven, porque a técnica base tem 71% do lucro em 5% das operações e breakeven mata cauda — as grandes vencedoras costumam voltar ao ponto de entrada antes de correr; (b) a regra por estrutura vai baixar MENOS que a de 2R, que é a alegação dele, porque ela espera mais antes de apertar; (c) o veredito não muda: segue REPROVADO no invariante, porque gestão de saída não conserta concentração de lucro.
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.