Momentum divergence (12/26/9, by peaks of the indicator)
Momentum is a leading indicator: when price makes a new high but momentum does not follow, the advance is losing strength, and price tends to follow momentum's direction rather than its own. The wider the divergence, the likelier the turn — and the longer the period over which it forms, the larger the reversal it announces.
Measured in forex — EUR/USD and GBP/USD · daily bars built from 15m · 1 pip spread (~0.009% per round trip) · no survivorship bias
- ✓invariance
- ?costs
- ?placebo
- ✗benchmark
- ?out of sample
- ✗multiple testing
At its worst the account was worth 0% less than its own best previous moment, and it spent 2,022 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 · against buying and holding
What would have happened to the money
What this result does NOT say
- 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 49 trades, but only 46 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 46 episodes, what the data supports is a range from -0.35% to +0.32% 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 | -0.16 | 2.02 | 46 |
| placebo | inconclusive | -0.16 | 2.02 | 46 |
| benchmark | failed | — | — | — |
| out of sample | inconclusive | — | — | — |
| multiple testing | failed | — | — | — |
- invariance49 signals across 4055 barsconcentration: +26.88% of the profit sits in the top 5% of trades — with the dates shuffled, +39.53% (fails above +50.00%)
- costsgross -0.018% · cost 0.008% · net -0.027% (t=-0.16) · the range reaches +0.307%
- placeboactual -0.027% · placebo -0.000% · excess -0.026% ± 0.168% (t=-0.16 against a threshold of 2.02, 46 real groups, 2,450 sham dates, draw error ±0.024%) — the status flips inside the placebo's own Monte Carlo error
- benchmarktechnique -0.03% · buy and hold (same horizon) +0.00% · excess -0.03%
- out of sampleasset half A: -0.090% (t=-0.48, 22 episodes) · asset half B: +0.025% (t=0.10, 27 episodes) · liquid half (>= US$ 0/day): -0.027% (t=-0.16, 46 episodes) · period 1/4 (2020-02-26 a 2021-08-27): +0.096% (t=0.30, 11 episodes) · period 2/4 (2022-04-18 a 2023-03-14): -0.087% (t=-0.20, 12 episodes) · period 3/4 (2023-04-20 a 2024-12-30): +0.114% (t=0.57, 11 episodes) · period 4/4 (2025-01-01 a 2026-05-17): -0.214% (t=-0.61, 12 episodes)
- multiple testing2 variation(s) tested · t=-0.16 across 46 episodes (equivalent to t=-0.16) · p≈0.8756 · false positives expected by chance ≈ 1.75
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
- 2,022
- 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
- −0.02%
- net per trade
- −0.03%
- exit rule
- the technique itself (held until the opposite signal)
- median duration bars
- 2
- mean duration bars
- 4.9
- max duration bars
- 44
- spread pips
- 1.0
- episode days
- 7
- seed
- 20260728
- div fast
- 12
- div slow
- 26
- div signal
- 9
- div reading
- peaks
- div window
- 20
- confirmation bars
- 5
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
Price rising while momentum falls (bearish), or the reverse (bullish), measured between consecutive peaks. The source gives complete rules for entry, exit and target, and three readings: by PEAKS of the MACD, by SLOPE of the price line against the momentum line, and ANTICIPATED (entering when price breaks resistance with momentum below the previous peak). All three will be measured — they are the same idea in different constructions, so ONE finding. And the source warns, in so many words, that 'there is no simple solution' and that 'what you see on a chart is not always easy to program'. It is the most taught technique in the chapter and the one that depends most on the auditor's choices; each one is declared. Family prediction, filed before measuring: (1) the control that kills the most will be COST, and not invariance — unlike the `adaptativos` family, because these are discrete-signal oscillators, they turn over less and are not always in the market; (2) the DIVERGENCE techniques will come out mostly INCONCLUSIVE, because they require two aligned peaks and fire rarely; (3) none survives the family's Benjamini-Hochberg. I record that prediction (1) is the opposite of the one I made in `adaptativos` and that was confirmed there — if I get it wrong again in the same direction, that is a sign I am misreading the mechanism of cost, not the technique. MEASURED IN FOREX (EUR/USD and GBP/USD, daily bars built from 15m), 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 540 over 9, a round trip costs about 20× less (a 1 pip spread crossed once, against 0.1% commission per leg), the detection floor is about 10× lower (0.092% against 0.97%) and there is NO survivorship bias, because a currency pair does not get delisted. And the family prediction that has ALREADY FAILED once in `adaptativos` is put on record: I wrote there that «cost cannot be the gravedigger» in forex, and it killed 6 of 10 — cost is 22× smaller, but gross return is 30× smaller. Here I expect the same mechanism, and this time that is the prediction.
filed on 2026-08-03, before the number existed
The original, as it was filed
Preço subindo enquanto o momento cai (baixista), ou o inverso (altista), medido entre picos consecutivos. A fonte dá regras completas de entrada, saída e alvo, e três leituras: por PICOS do MACD, por INCLINAÇÃO da reta de preço contra a do momento, e ANTECIPADA (entra quando o preço rompe a resistência com o momento abaixo do pico anterior). As três serão medidas — são a mesma ideia com construções diferentes, então UM achado. ⚠️ E a fonte adverte, com todas as letras, que 'não há solução simples' e que 'o que se vê num gráfico nem sempre é fácil de programar'. É a técnica mais ensinada do capítulo e a que mais depende de escolhas do auditor; cada uma vai declarada. Previsão da família, registrada antes de medir: (1) o controle que mais mata será o CUSTO, e não o invariante — diferente da família `adaptativos`, porque estes são osciladores de sinal discreto, giram menos e não são sempre-no-mercado; (2) as técnicas de DIVERGÊNCIA sairão majoritariamente INCONCLUSIVAS, porque exigem dois picos alinhados e disparam pouco; (3) nenhuma sobrevive ao Benjamini-Hochberg da família. ⚠️ Registro que a previsão (1) é o oposto da que fiz em `adaptativos` e que se confirmou lá — se eu errar de novo na mesma direção, é sinal de que estou lendo mal o mecanismo do custo, e não a técnica. ⚠️ 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 540 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 fica registrada a previsão da família que JÁ FALHOU uma vez em `adaptativos`: escrevi lá que «o custo não tem como ser o coveiro» em forex, e ele matou 6 de 10 — o custo é 22× menor, mas o retorno bruto é 30× menor. Aqui espero o mesmo mecanismo, e desta vez a previsão é essa.
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.