FAILED

Hochheimer Directional Movement (DM14, with stop confirmation)

Comparing how much of each bar fell outside the previous one, upwards and downwards, identifies the market's direction well enough to trade on it alone — no trend, no oscillator, no filter. Requiring price to reach for the high of the crossover day before reversing the position removes the crossovers that never become a move, at the cost of a later entry.

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

+0.08%

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%

889 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 889 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, 168 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 80 of the 168. 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

+0.08% 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 889 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 168 trades, but only 80 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 80 episodes, what the data supports is a range from -0.32% to +0.49% 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	0.37	1.99	80
placebo	inconclusive	0.20	1.99	80
benchmark	passed	—	—	—
out of sample	inconclusive	—	—	—
multiple testing	failed	—	—	—

invariance168 signals across 4055 barsconcentration: +44.17% of the profit sits in the top 5% of trades — with the dates shuffled, +33.57% (fails above +50.00%)
costsgross +0.084% · cost 0.008% · net +0.076% (t=0.37) · the range runs from -0.329% to +0.481%
placeboactual +0.076% · placebo +0.036% · excess +0.040% ± 0.204% (t=0.20 against a threshold of 1.99, 80 real groups, 8,400 sham dates, draw error ±0.026%) — the status flips inside the placebo's own Monte Carlo error
benchmarktechnique +0.08% · buy and hold (same horizon) +0.06% · excess +0.02%
out of sampleasset half A: +0.125% (t=0.46, 61 episodes) · asset half B: +0.026% (t=0.11, 61 episodes) · liquid half (>= US$ 0/day): +0.076% (t=0.37, 80 episodes) · period 1/4 (2020-01-31 a 2021-06-17): +0.179% (t=0.55, 20 episodes) · period 2/4 (2021-07-28 a 2022-11-03): -0.332% (t=-0.88, 21 episodes) · period 3/4 (2022-11-07 a 2024-06-27): +0.228% (t=0.63, 22 episodes) · period 4/4 (2024-07-01 a 2026-05-25): +0.229% (t=0.38, 19 episodes)
multiple testing2 variation(s) tested · t=0.37 across 80 episodes (equivalent to t=0.37) · p≈0.7128 · false positives expected by chance ≈ 1.43

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: 889
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: 2
gross per trade: +0.08%
net per trade: +0.08%
exit rule: the technique itself (held until the opposite signal)
median duration bars: 16
mean duration bars: 23.4
max duration bars: 151
spread pips: 1.0
episode days: 19
seed: 20260728
period: 14
variant: confirmed
stop level: fixed

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

An always-in-the-market system on the 14-period directional indicators: long while the PDI is above the MDI, short while it is below. The source defines it in TWO ways and compares them — immediate entry at the crossover, and entry only when price goes on to take out the high (or low) of the crossover bar. Two variants of one technique, two cards, one claim. The sell rule of the immediate variant is printed with the BUY condition; we use the mirror, which is how the other variant prints it. The stop is intra-bar: the condition is evaluated causally, but entry goes off at the close, which makes it more expensive than in the source. We audit the published period of 14, not the best of the sweep the source itself runs over 20 periods × 5 markets — and about which it concludes that it does not meet the conditions of a robust system. Family-level prediction, recorded before measuring: (1) the gravedigger will be the INVARIANT in crypto and the BENCHMARK in forex — the two auditable techniques are always-in-the-market reversal systems, the same mechanics as `adaptativos`, where the invariant killed 7 of 10 in crypto and the benchmark 6 of 10 in forex; (2) Hochheimer's variant WITH CONFIRMATION will survive cost better than the immediate one, because it turns over half as much (485 reversals against 998 over 13,607 bars); (3) the MIRROR reading of the 2-day rules will do worse than the LITERAL one, because it stays in the market 100% of the time and on 32.8% of the bars it buys merely because the average directional index is rising — a condition blind to direction, followed by −0.332% over five bars; (4) none survives the family's Benjamini-Hochberg. And it is on record that a BH over 4 claims is weak by construction: the family is small because the section is small, not because anything was left out. MEASURED IN FOREX (EUR/USD and GBP/USD, daily aggregated from 15m), and not in crypto. This is a pre-registered REPLICATION of the same technique in the second market — not a new discovery —, and the multiple-testing count treats it as such. What changes relative to the crypto card: 2 pairs over 6.5 years against 670 symbols over 9, the cost of turnover is ~20× lower (a 1-pip spread crossed once, against a 0.1% commission per side), the detection floor is ~10× lower (0.092% against 0.97%) and there is NO survivorship bias, because a currency pair is not delisted. And the family prediction says the gravedigger changes with the market: the invariant in crypto, the BENCHMARK here — which is what happened to the always-in-the-market systems of `adaptativos`, which died 6 of 10 at the benchmark in forex.

filed on 2026-08-03, before the number existed

The original, as it was filed

Sistema sempre no mercado sobre os indicadores direcionais de 14 períodos: comprado enquanto o PDI está acima do MDI, vendido enquanto está abaixo. A fonte o define de DUAS maneiras e as compara — entrada imediata no cruzamento, e entrada só quando o preço vai buscar a máxima (ou mínima) da vela do cruzamento. Duas variantes de uma técnica, dois cards, uma alegação. ⚠️ A regra da venda da variante imediata está impressa com a condição da COMPRA; usamos o espelho, que é como a outra variante a imprime. ⚠️ O stop é intra-vela: a condição é avaliada de forma causal, mas a entrada sai pelo fechamento, o que a encarece em relação à fonte. ⚠️ Auditamos o período 14 publicado, não o melhor da varredura que a própria fonte roda em 20 períodos × 5 mercados — e sobre a qual ela mesma conclui que não satisfaz as condições de um sistema robusto. Previsão da família, registrada antes de medir: (1) o coveiro será o INVARIANTE em cripto e o BENCHMARK em forex — as duas técnicas auditáveis são sistemas de reversão sempre no mercado, a mesma mecânica de `adaptativos`, onde o invariante matou 7 de 10 em cripto e o benchmark 6 de 10 em forex; (2) a variante de Hochheimer COM CONFIRMAÇÃO sobreviverá ao custo melhor que a imediata, porque gira metade (485 inversões contra 998 em 13.607 velas); (3) a leitura ESPELHO das regras de 2 dias irá pior que a LITERAL, porque fica no mercado 100% do tempo e em 32,8% das velas compra só porque o índice direcional médio está subindo — condição cega para direção, seguida de −0,332% em cinco velas; (4) nenhuma sobrevive ao Benjamini-Hochberg da família. ⚠️ E fica registrado que o BH sobre 4 alegações é fraco por construção: a família é pequena porque a seção é pequena, não porque alguma coisa foi deixada de fora. ⚠️ MEDIDO EM FOREX (EUR/USD e GBP/USD, diário agregado de 15m), e não em cripto. Isto é uma REPLICAÇÃO pré-registrada da mesma técnica no segundo mercado — não uma descoberta nova —, e a conta de múltiplos testes a trata como tal. O que muda em relação ao card de cripto: são 2 pares em 6,5 anos contra 670 símbolos em 9, o custo do giro é ~20× menor (spread de 1 pip cruzado uma vez, contra comissão de 0,1% por lado), o piso de detecção é ~10× menor (0,092% contra 0,97%) e NÃO há viés de sobrevivência, porque par de moeda não é deslistado. ⚠️ E a previsão da família diz que o coveiro muda de mercado: invariante em cripto, BENCHMARK aqui — é o que aconteceu com os sistemas sempre-no-mercado de `adaptativos`, que morreram 6 de 10 no benchmark em forex.

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.