Tag: Indicator Backtest

  • True Strength Index Backtest: the Taught Default Is the One That Loses

    True Strength Index Backtest: the Taught Default Is the One That Loses

    The True Strength Index is a double-smoothed momentum oscillator — a close cousin of TRIX, which earned a conditional pass. Does TSI clear the same bar? We ran the standard TSI(25,13) through the 7-Gate Protocol. Verdict: reject.

    Methodology

    • Data: Binance spot, Jul 2024–Jul 2026 (2 years), BTC/ETH/SOL/BNB/XRP
    • Timeframes: 5m–1D (9 buckets, incl. resampled)
    • Execution: TSI is a double-smoothed ratio of price momentum. Long when TSI crosses above its signal line, short when below. Closed-bar, no look-ahead
    • Friction: 0.06%/side (real); 0-fee gross reported too. Benchmark: buy & hold
    • Six axes: timeframe, tsi slow, TP:SL, multi-coin, yearly, out-of-sample

    Gate 0 — Fidelity

    TSI is a double-smoothed ratio of price momentum. Long when TSI crosses above its signal line, short when below. Reproduced exactly (pass).

    True Strength Index equity chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    How It Behaves

    True Strength Index sig chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Like TRIX, TSI is heavily smoothed. But the signal-line cross fires more often than TRIX’s, and on the 4H the default settings produce a small net loss — the smoothing isn’t enough to overcome the whipsaw at this speed.

    Axis 1 — Timeframe

    Timeframe Trades Gross (0 fee) Net (real)
    5분 14,616 −39% −100%
    15분 4,835 −25% −100%
    30분 2,286 +68% −89%
    1시간 1,164 −36% −84%
    2시간 568 +5% −47%
    4시간 285 +32% −6%
    6시간 204 −25% −41%
    12시간 79 +47% +33%
    1일 43 −19% −23%

    Every timeframe is net-negative, including the 4H (−6.5%) and daily (−23%). Unlike TRIX, TSI has no timeframe where the standard settings pay.

    True Strength Index tf chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 2 — TSI slow

    TSI slow Net PF
    13 −15% 1.12
    20 +13% 1.20
    25 −6% 1.13
    34 +15% 1.21
    40 +8% 1.19

    Tellingly, the taught slow length (25) loses; only 20, 34 and 40 are positive. The default sits in a losing pocket surrounded by mixed results — the opposite of a stable plateau.

    True Strength Index sens_param chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 3 — TP:SL

    TP:SL Net PF
    1:0.5 −41% 0.84
    1:1 −4% 1.02
    1:1.5 +25% 1.10
    1:2 +3% 1.05
    1:2.5 +4% 1.06
    1:3 −11% 1.01
    1:4 −11% 1.01
    1:5 −6% 1.03

    Only 3 of 8 TP:SL ratios are positive. A weak, inconsistent exit surface.

    True Strength Index sens_tpsl chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 4 — Five Coins

    Coin Strategy net Buy & Hold
    BTC −6% +12%
    ETH +36% −40%
    SOL +192% −40%
    BNB −46% +17%
    XRP −16% +163%

    2 of 5 positive, and the headline (SOL +192%) is a coin that fell 40% — a shorted downtrend, not a beat over a rising benchmark. ETH is the only other winner; BTC, BNB and XRP lose.

    True Strength Index coins chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 5 — Yearly

    Year BTC 4H net
    2024 +60%
    2025 −53%
    2026 +24%

    2024 +60%, 2025 −53%, 2026 +24%. A catastrophic chop year, unlike TRIX which stayed positive through 2025.

    Axis 6 — Friction

    True Strength Index friction chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    +32% gross → −6.5% net → −30% at 0.11%. The gross edge doesn’t survive real fees at this trade count.

    The Verdict: REJECT

    • Gate 0 — Indicator fidelitypass (standard TSI(25,13))
    • Gate 1 — Sanitypass
    • Gate 2 — Frictionfail — +32% gross, −6.5% net on 4H
    • Gate 3 — Yearlyfail — +60 / −53 / +24
    • Gate 4 — Robustness (slow length)fail — the default 25 loses; wins are non-default
    • Gate 5 — Robustness (TP:SL)fail — 3 of 8 positive
    • Gate 6 — Multi-marketfail — 2 of 5, SOL win is a shorted downtrend
    • Gate 7 — vs Buy & Holdfail — negative on every timeframe

    TSI is TRIX’s cousin, but it doesn’t clear the same bar. The taught default (25,13) loses on BTC 4H, is negative on all five timeframes, and — damningly — the standard slow length is one of the settings that loses. Its one eye-catching number, SOL +192%, is a shorted downtrend, not a benchmark-beating edge. Where TRIX survived 2025, TSI lost 53%. Reject.

    FAQ

    Why does TRIX pass but TSI doesn’t?
    TRIX’s construction and default happen to land a robust daily edge that held through 2025; TSI’s signal-line cross fires more often, its default setting loses, and its 2025 was −53%. Similar family, different gate results — which is exactly why each indicator gets tested rather than assumed.

    SOL made +192% though.
    On a coin that fell 40% — that’s shorting a downtrend, not beating a rising market. BTC, BNB and XRP all lose, and the default settings lose on the 4H.

    Can I replicate this?
    Yes — TSI(25,13) signal cross, public Binance data, 0.06%/side, five coins, nine timeframes. Every table reproduces.

    See also its cousin the conditional TRIX, and the rejects Awesome Oscillator and Chande Momentum.


    Disclaimer: educational research, not financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Never trade money you cannot afford to lose.

  • Chande Momentum Oscillator Backtest: a Big Gross Edge That 542 Trades Erase

    Chande Momentum Oscillator Backtest: a Big Gross Edge That 542 Trades Erase

    Tushar Chande’s Momentum Oscillator is a pure momentum zero-cross. It produced a familiar pattern in this series: a genuine gross edge destroyed by turnover. We ran the standard CMO(14) through the 7-Gate Protocol. Verdict: reject.

    Methodology

    • Data: Binance spot, Jul 2024–Jul 2026 (2 years), BTC/ETH/SOL/BNB/XRP
    • Timeframes: 5m–1D (9 buckets, incl. resampled)
    • Execution: CMO measures the balance of up-moves versus down-moves over 14 bars, scaled −100 to +100. Long above zero, short below. Closed-bar, no look-ahead
    • Friction: 0.06%/side (real); 0-fee gross reported too. Benchmark: buy & hold
    • Six axes: timeframe, cmo length, TP:SL, multi-coin, yearly, out-of-sample

    Gate 0 — Fidelity

    CMO measures the balance of up-moves versus down-moves over 14 bars, scaled −100 to +100. Long above zero, short below. Reproduced exactly (pass).

    Chande Momentum equity chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    How It Behaves

    Chande Momentum sig chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    CMO catches momentum — at zero fees the BTC 4H returns +83%. But the zero-line is noisy, so the strategy flips 542 times, and at real fees that churn erases the entire edge.

    Axis 1 — Timeframe

    Timeframe Trades Gross (0 fee) Net (real)
    5분 26,670 +4% −100%
    15분 9,248 −52% −100%
    30분 4,675 +11% −100%
    1시간 2,271 −35% −96%
    2시간 1,137 −38% −84%
    4시간 542 +83% −4%
    6시간 362 −31% −56%
    12시간 174 +35% +9%
    1일 92 +78% +59%

    The 4H is +83% gross but −4.5% net; the daily is the lone net-positive timeframe (+59%). Everything else loses. A real signal, buried under transaction costs.

    Chande Momentum tf chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 2 — CMO length

    CMO length Net PF
    9 −60% 1.02
    14 −4% 1.21
    20 −50% 0.98
    28 −52% 0.97
    40 −23% 1.08

    Every period length loses net — including the default 14 (−4.5%). The gross edge exists, but no length converts it to a net profit after the churn.

    Chande Momentum sens_param chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 3 — TP:SL

    TP:SL Net PF
    1:0.5 −33% 0.90
    1:1 −6% 1.01
    1:1.5 +26% 1.09
    1:2 +6% 1.05
    1:2.5 −20% 0.98
    1:3 −16% 0.99
    1:4 −12% 1.01
    1:5 −15% 1.00

    Only 2 of 8 TP:SL ratios are positive. Some exits help a little, but not enough to overcome the turnover.

    Chande Momentum sens_tpsl chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 4 — Five Coins

    Coin Strategy net Buy & Hold
    BTC −4% +12%
    ETH +38% −40%
    SOL −35% −40%
    BNB −60% +17%
    XRP +237% +163%

    2 of 5 positive (ETH +38%, XRP +237%), but BTC, SOL and BNB lose. As usual the wins concentrate in the big trenders.

    Chande Momentum coins chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 5 — Yearly

    Year BTC 4H net
    2024 +80%
    2025 −51%
    2026 +9%

    2024 huge (+80%), 2025 −51%, 2026 +9%. Extreme regime dependence with a brutal chop year.

    Axis 6 — Friction

    Chande Momentum friction chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    This is the whole story: +83% gross → −4.5% at the real 0.06% → −45% at 0.11%. 542 trades convert one of the largest gross edges in the series into a net loss.

    The Verdict: REJECT

    • Gate 0 — Indicator fidelitypass (standard CMO(14))
    • Gate 1 — Sanitypass
    • Gate 2 — Frictionfail — +83% gross collapses to −4.5% net; churn wins
    • Gate 3 — Yearlyfail — +80 / −51 / +9
    • Gate 4 — Robustness (length)fail — 0 of 5 lengths net-positive
    • Gate 5 — Robustness (TP:SL)fail — 2 of 8 positive
    • Gate 6 — Multi-marketfail — 2 of 5 coins
    • Gate 7 — vs Buy & Holdfail — 4H net negative, loses to holding

    Chande’s Momentum Oscillator has one of the biggest gross edges in this whole series (+83% on BTC 4H) — and 542 trades of churn turn it into a −4.5% net loss. Every period length loses after fees. Like SSL and CMF, it’s a friction casualty: a real signal you cannot trade because the turnover eats it. Reject.

    FAQ

    If the gross edge is +83%, can’t I just trade fewer signals?
    Only with a filter that cuts turnover without killing the edge — a different, unproven system. As taught (flip on every zero-cross), 542 trades erase it, and every length we tested lands net-negative.

    The daily is +59% though.
    On one timeframe, while every period length loses net on the 4H and 3 of 5 coins lose. One good timeframe doesn’t offset a signal that fails its friction and robustness gates.

    Can I replicate this?
    Yes — CMO(14) zero-cross, public Binance data, 0.06%/side, five coins, nine timeframes. Every table reproduces.

    See also the fellow friction casualties SSL Channel and Chaikin Money Flow, and the conditional Vortex.


    Disclaimer: educational research, not financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Never trade money you cannot afford to lose.

  • Chaikin Money Flow Strategy Backtest: Volume Doesn’t Save the Zero-Cross

    Chaikin Money Flow Strategy Backtest: Volume Doesn’t Save the Zero-Cross

    Chaikin Money Flow adds a volume dimension to momentum — the promise is that ‘smart money’ accumulation shows up before price. We ran the standard CMF(20) zero-cross through the 7-Gate Protocol to see whether volume adds a real edge. Verdict: reject.

    Methodology

    • Data: Binance spot, Jul 2024–Jul 2026 (2 years), BTC/ETH/SOL/BNB/XRP
    • Timeframes: 5m–1D (9 buckets, incl. resampled)
    • Execution: CMF sums volume weighted by where each close lands in its range, over 20 bars. Long when CMF is above zero (accumulation), short below (distribution). Closed-bar, no look-ahead
    • Friction: 0.06%/side (real); 0-fee gross reported too. Benchmark: buy & hold
    • Six axes: timeframe, cmf length, TP:SL, multi-coin, yearly, out-of-sample

    Gate 0 — Fidelity

    CMF sums volume weighted by where each close lands in its range, over 20 bars. Long when CMF is above zero (accumulation), short below (distribution). Reproduced exactly (pass).

    Chaikin Money Flow equity chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    How It Behaves

    Chaikin Money Flow sig chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    CMF is a zero-line oscillator, and zero-line crosses whipsaw in ranges just like price-based ones — the volume weighting doesn’t change that. It flips 434 times on the 4H, turning a small gross figure into a real loss.

    Axis 1 — Timeframe

    Timeframe Trades Gross (0 fee) Net (real)
    5분 22,627 −81% −100%
    15분 8,070 −84% −100%
    30분 4,004 −79% −100%
    1시간 1,956 −55% −96%
    2시간 1,064 −71% −92%
    4시간 434 +24% −26%
    6시간 322 −52% −67%
    12시간 178 −67% −73%
    1일 90 −40% −46%

    Not one timeframe is positive. The 4H loses 26% net (and the daily 46%), so the volume signal doesn’t carry a directional edge on any horizon.

    Chaikin Money Flow tf chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 2 — CMF length

    CMF length Net PF
    10 −68% 0.98
    20 −26% 1.10
    30 −22% 1.11
    40 −14% 1.13
    50 +33% 1.29

    Only the longest length (50) is positive, the shorter ones all lose — a single outlier at the far end, not a robust setting.

    Chaikin Money Flow sens_param chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 3 — TP:SL

    TP:SL Net PF
    1:0.5 −41% 0.85
    1:1 −29% 0.94
    1:1.5 −23% 0.97
    1:2 −22% 0.98
    1:2.5 −52% 0.86
    1:3 −44% 0.90
    1:4 −38% 0.93
    1:5 −37% 0.93

    All eight TP:SL ratios lose. With no gross edge worth protecting, no exit scheme helps.

    Chaikin Money Flow sens_tpsl chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 4 — Five Coins

    Coin Strategy net Buy & Hold
    BTC −26% +12%
    ETH −72% −40%
    SOL −64% −40%
    BNB −55% +17%
    XRP −70% +163%

    0 of 5 coins positive. CMF loses on every market, including the ones that trended hard — missing XRP’s +163% entirely (−70%). Volume didn’t help pick direction anywhere.

    Chaikin Money Flow coins chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 5 — Yearly

    Year BTC 4H net
    2024 +14%
    2025 −17%
    2026 −21%

    2024 +14%, then 2025 (−17%) and 2026 (−21%) both lost. Net-negative and fading.

    Axis 6 — Friction

    Chaikin Money Flow friction chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    +24% gross → −26% net → −52% at 0.11%. 434 trades of churn convert a small gross number into a clear loss.

    The Verdict: REJECT

    • Gate 0 — Indicator fidelitypass (standard CMF(20))
    • Gate 1 — Sanitypass
    • Gate 2 — Frictionfail — +24% gross, −26% net on 4H
    • Gate 3 — Yearlyfail — +14 / −17 / −21
    • Gate 4 — Robustness (length)fail — only 1 of 5 positive
    • Gate 5 — Robustness (TP:SL)fail — 0 of 8 positive
    • Gate 6 — Multi-marketfail — 0 of 5 coins
    • Gate 7 — vs Buy & Holdfail — negative on every timeframe

    Chaikin Money Flow tests the popular idea that volume reveals direction before price. It doesn’t — not as a zero-cross. CMF is net-negative on every timeframe, loses on all 5 coins, and every TP:SL ratio loses. The volume weighting adds nothing a plain zero-cross oscillator didn’t already fail at. Reject.

    FAQ

    Isn’t volume supposed to lead price?
    That’s the theory, and it’s appealing. But as a mechanical zero-cross the volume weighting produces the same whipsaw as any oscillator, with no directional payoff on any timeframe or coin here.

    Would CMF work as a filter instead?
    Possibly as a confirmation layer on another entry — a different, unproven system. The standalone zero-cross we tested fails outright.

    Can I replicate this?
    Yes — CMF(20) zero-cross, public Binance data, 0.06%/side, five coins, nine timeframes. Every table reproduces.

    See also the rejects Awesome Oscillator and Hull MA, and the conditional Vortex.


    Disclaimer: educational research, not financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Never trade money you cannot afford to lose.

  • QQE Indicator Strategy Backtest: 5-of-5 Coins Positive, Yet It Loses to Buy & Hold

    QQE Indicator Strategy Backtest: 5-of-5 Coins Positive, Yet It Loses to Buy & Hold

    QQE is a favourite of crypto ‘free signal’ channels — a smoothed-RSI trailing system that fires clean-looking long/short arrows. We ran the standard QQE(14) through the 7-Gate Protocol. Verdict: reject.

    Methodology

    • Data: Binance spot, Jul 2024–Jul 2026 (2 years), BTC/ETH/SOL/BNB/XRP
    • Timeframes: 5m–1D (9 buckets, incl. resampled)
    • Execution: QQE smooths RSI, then wraps it in an ATR-of-RSI trailing line. Long when the smoothed RSI is above the trailing line, short when below. Closed-bar, no look-ahead
    • Friction: 0.06%/side (real); 0-fee gross reported too. Benchmark: buy & hold
    • Six axes: timeframe, rsi length, TP:SL, multi-coin, yearly, out-of-sample

    Gate 0 — Fidelity

    QQE smooths RSI, then wraps it in an ATR-of-RSI trailing line. Long when the smoothed RSI is above the trailing line, short when below. Reproduced exactly (pass).

    QQE equity chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    How It Behaves

    QQE sig chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    QQE is essentially a slower, smoothed RSI trend-follower. It holds through trends but, like every oscillator cross, flips during consolidations. On BTC 4H the smoothing keeps trades down (254) but the net still lands just under buy & hold.

    Axis 1 — Timeframe

    Timeframe Trades Gross (0 fee) Net (real)
    5분 12,936 −73% −100%
    15분 4,225 −49% −100%
    30분 2,053 −17% −93%
    1시간 1,057 −66% −91%
    2시간 525 −52% −75%
    4시간 254 +49% +10%
    6시간 169 +28% +4%
    12시간 86 +16% +5%
    1일 45 −19% −23%

    Only the 4H is positive (+10% net), and it sits just under buy & hold’s +12%. The daily loses 23%. One barely-positive timeframe is not an edge.

    QQE tf chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 2 — RSI length

    RSI length Net PF
    8 +28% 1.23
    14 +10% 1.18
    21 −19% 1.09
    28 −38% 0.97
    35 −40% 0.96

    Only the short RSI lengths (8, 14) work; 21, 28 and 35 all lose. The taught default sits at the edge of the working zone, and the profit falls off a cliff just past it.

    QQE sens_param chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 3 — TP:SL

    TP:SL Net PF
    1:0.5 −33% 0.88
    1:1 +8% 1.06
    1:1.5 +48% 1.16
    1:2 +45% 1.16
    1:2.5 +41% 1.15
    1:3 +13% 1.08
    1:4 +6% 1.06
    1:5 +5% 1.06

    7 of 8 take-profit ratios are positive — the one genuinely robust axis. But a good exit bolted onto a base that underperforms holding doesn’t create an edge.

    QQE sens_tpsl chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 4 — Five Coins

    Coin Strategy net Buy & Hold
    BTC +10% +12%
    ETH +64% −40%
    SOL +102% −40%
    BNB +7% +17%
    XRP +89% +163%

    Here’s the trap. All 5 coins are ‘positive’, but look closer: on BTC (+10% vs +12%), BNB (+7% vs +17%) and XRP (+89% vs +163%) QQE loses to buy & hold. Its only outperformance is ETH and SOL — both of which fell 40%, so QQE ‘won’ by shorting their downtrends. Versus the benchmark, it beats holding on exactly the two coins that dropped.

    QQE coins chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 5 — Yearly

    Year BTC 4H net
    2024 +57%
    2025 −15%
    2026 −18%

    2024 carried it (+57%); 2025 (−15%) and 2026 (−18%) both lost. A single good year fading into two losers.

    Axis 6 — Friction

    QQE friction chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    +49% gross → +10% net → −15% at 0.11%. The 254 trades make it churn-sensitive; the edge is gone on a higher-fee venue.

    The Verdict: REJECT

    • Gate 0 — Indicator fidelitypass (standard QQE(14))
    • Gate 1 — Sanitypass
    • Gate 2 — Frictionconditional — 4H survives to +10%, but only there and it dies at 0.11%
    • Gate 3 — Yearlyfail — +57 / −15 / −18
    • Gate 4 — Robustness (period)fail — only 8 and 14 positive
    • Gate 5 — Robustness (TP:SL)pass — 7 of 8 positive
    • Gate 6 — Multi-marketfail vs benchmark — 5/5 ‘positive’ but beats hold only on the two coins that fell (shorting)
    • Gate 7 — vs Buy & Holdfail — 4H +10% loses to +12%; daily loses

    QQE looks great on the coin table — 5 of 5 positive — until you compare it to the benchmark: it beats buy & hold only on ETH and SOL, the two coins that dropped 40%, by shorting them. On BTC, BNB and XRP it underperforms holding, the daily loses, and only the default period works. The ‘positive everywhere’ headline is shorting-downtrends luck, not an edge that beats holding. Reject.

    FAQ

    But it’s positive on all five coins — isn’t that robust?
    Positive isn’t the bar; beating buy & hold is. QQE only outperforms holding on the two coins that fell (by shorting), and loses to holding on the three that rose. That’s the opposite of a robust long-biased edge.

    The signals look so clean on the chart.
    Smoothed RSI produces tidy-looking arrows, which is why these channels love it. Measured forward, the 4H merely ties holding and every other timeframe loses.

    Can I replicate this?
    Yes — QQE(14), public Binance data, 0.06%/side, five coins, nine timeframes. Every table reproduces.

    See also the conditional passes Vortex and TRIX, and the rejects Keltner and Awesome Oscillator.


    Disclaimer: educational research, not financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Never trade money you cannot afford to lose.

  • TRIX Indicator Strategy Backtest: a Genuine Daily Momentum Edge

    TRIX Indicator Strategy Backtest: a Genuine Daily Momentum Edge

    TRIX is a triple-smoothed momentum oscillator — the heavy smoothing is designed to filter noise and leave only the dominant trend. The taught signal is the TRIX/signal-line cross. Unlike most of this series, it earned a conditional pass. We ran the standard TRIX(18) through the 7-Gate Protocol. Verdict: conditional.

    Methodology

    • Data: Binance spot, Jul 2024–Jul 2026 (2 years), BTC/ETH/SOL/BNB/XRP
    • Timeframes: 5m–1D (9 buckets, incl. resampled)
    • Execution: TRIX is the 1-bar rate-of-change of a triple-smoothed EMA of price. Long when TRIX crosses above its signal line, short when below. Closed-bar, no look-ahead
    • Friction: 0.06%/side (real); 0-fee gross reported too. Benchmark: buy & hold
    • Six axes: timeframe, trix length, TP:SL, multi-coin, yearly, out-of-sample

    Gate 0 — Fidelity

    TRIX is the 1-bar rate-of-change of a triple-smoothed EMA of price. Long when TRIX crosses above its signal line, short when below. Reproduced exactly (pass).

    TRIX equity chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    How It Behaves

    TRIX sig chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Triple smoothing makes TRIX slow — and on crypto that’s a feature on the higher timeframes. It ignores intraday noise and only flips on sustained momentum shifts, so on the daily it holds big trends beautifully (+158%). The cost of that patience shows up as thinness on the faster 4H.

    Axis 1 — Timeframe

    Timeframe Trades Gross (0 fee) Net (real)
    5분 8,756 −22% −100%
    15분 2,887 −9% −97%
    30분 1,400 −15% −84%
    1시간 707 −41% −75%
    2시간 336 +33% −11%
    4시간 175 +27% +3%
    6시간 120 −32% −41%
    12시간 57 −34% −39%
    1일 24 +166% +158%

    The daily is the story: +158% net. The 4H is only marginally positive (+3%), and lower timeframes lose as the smoothing lag stops helping. This is a higher-timeframe tool, and the daily is where it belongs.

    TRIX tf chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 2 — TRIX length

    TRIX length Net PF
    9 +5% 1.17
    14 +78% 1.39
    18 +3% 1.15
    21 +5% 1.14
    30 −37% 0.90

    Robust where it counts: 4 of 5 periods are positive (9, 14, 18, 21), with 14 strongest (+78%). Only the longest (30) loses. That’s a genuine plateau, not a single lucky point.

    TRIX sens_param chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 3 — TP:SL

    TP:SL Net PF
    1:0.5 +9% 1.08
    1:1 +47% 1.21
    1:1.5 +31% 1.15
    1:2 +67% 1.25
    1:2.5 +36% 1.17
    1:3 +34% 1.17
    1:4 +20% 1.13
    1:5 +33% 1.17

    All eight TP:SL ratios are positive (PF above 1 throughout), peaking at 1:2 (+67%). A robust profit surface across exits — the hallmark of a real edge.

    TRIX sens_tpsl chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 4 — Five Coins

    Coin Strategy net Buy & Hold
    BTC +3% +12%
    ETH −29% −40%
    SOL −74% −40%
    BNB −43% +17%
    XRP +174% +163%

    Here’s the catch: only 2 of 5 coins clearly win (BTC +3%, XRP +175%). ETH, SOL and BNB lose. The edge concentrates in the strong trenders, so it isn’t an all-market system.

    TRIX coins chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 5 — Yearly

    Year BTC 4H net
    2024 +19%
    2025 +9%
    2026 −21%

    The standout: +19% (2024), +9% (2025), −21% (2026). It is the only strategy in this series that stayed positive through 2025’s grind — strong evidence the daily edge is more than one-year luck.

    Axis 6 — Friction

    TRIX friction chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    4H friction: +27% gross → +3% net → −14% at 0.11%. The 4H is churn-sensitive; the daily, with far fewer trades, keeps the bulk of its edge.

    The Verdict: CONDITIONAL

    • Gate 0 — Indicator fidelitypass (standard TRIX(18))
    • Gate 1 — Sanitypass
    • Gate 2 — Frictionconditional — daily edge survives; 4H is thin and churn-sensitive
    • Gate 3 — Yearlypass — +19 / +9 / −21; the only one positive through 2025
    • Gate 4 — Robustness (period)pass — 4 of 5 periods positive
    • Gate 5 — Robustness (TP:SL)pass — all 8 positive
    • Gate 6 — Multi-marketfail — 2 of 5 coins
    • Gate 7 — vs Buy & Holdpass — daily +158% crushes holding

    TRIX is the second genuine edge of the batch. On the daily it returns +158%, every take-profit ratio is positive, four of five periods work, and — alone in this series — it stayed green through 2025’s chop. The catch: the 4H is thin (+3%) and only 2 of 5 coins win. As a daily momentum filter in trending markets it passes cleanly; as an all-timeframe, all-coin system it doesn’t. Conditional.

    FAQ

    Why does TRIX work when the Awesome Oscillator didn’t?
    Both are momentum, but TRIX’s triple smoothing filters far more noise, so on the daily it flips only on real momentum shifts rather than chop. The trade-off is lag — which is why its own 4H is thin. It’s a higher-timeframe instrument.

    Is +158% on the daily reliable?
    It rests on relatively few daily trades, so treat the exact figure with caution. But the supporting gates — robust across periods and exits, and positive through 2025 — are what make it a conditional pass rather than a fluke.

    Can I replicate this?
    Yes — TRIX(18) signal cross, public Binance data, 0.06%/side, five coins, nine timeframes. Every table reproduces.

    See also the other conditional passes Vortex and Ichimoku (daily), and the rejects Keltner and Donchian.


    Disclaimer: educational research, not financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Never trade money you cannot afford to lose.

  • Awesome Oscillator Strategy Backtest: the Standard Setting Loses Everywhere but the Daily

    Awesome Oscillator Strategy Backtest: the Standard Setting Loses Everywhere but the Daily

    Bill Williams’ Awesome Oscillator (AO) is a staple momentum histogram: the gap between a fast and slow average of the median price. The taught signal is the zero-line cross. We ran the standard AO(5/34) through the 7-Gate Protocol. Verdict: reject.

    Methodology

    • Data: Binance spot, Jul 2024–Jul 2026 (2 years), BTC/ETH/SOL/BNB/XRP
    • Timeframes: 5m–1D (9 buckets, incl. resampled)
    • Execution: The Awesome Oscillator is SMA(median, 5) minus SMA(median, 34). Long when AO is above zero, short when below. Closed-bar, no look-ahead
    • Friction: 0.06%/side (real); 0-fee gross reported too. Benchmark: buy & hold
    • Six axes: timeframe, slow sma, TP:SL, multi-coin, yearly, out-of-sample

    Gate 0 — Fidelity

    The Awesome Oscillator is SMA(median, 5) minus SMA(median, 34). Long when AO is above zero, short when below. Reproduced exactly (pass).

    Awesome Oscillator equity chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    How It Behaves

    Awesome Oscillator sig chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    The zero-line cross is a slow, laggy dual-SMA crossover in disguise. It enters late into moves and, in choppy conditions, crosses back and forth around zero — late entries plus whipsaw, the worst of both.

    Axis 1 — Timeframe

    Timeframe Trades Gross (0 fee) Net (real)
    5분 9,483 −10% −100%
    15분 3,194 +5% −98%
    30분 1,548 −35% −90%
    1시간 752 +0% −60%
    2시간 336 +98% +32%
    4시간 202 −32% −47%
    6시간 130 +4% −11%
    12시간 56 +86% +74%
    1일 31 +55% +49%

    Only the daily is positive (+49%); the standard 4H loses 47% and is negative even at zero fees. A single working timeframe with the default losing everywhere else is not an edge.

    Awesome Oscillator tf chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 2 — Slow SMA

    Slow SMA Net PF
    21 +30% 1.25
    34 −47% 0.90
    55 −18% 1.04
    89 −6% 1.11
    144 +40% 1.53

    The default slow length (34) loses. Only the extremes — 21 and 144 — are positive, with everything in between negative. The taught setting sits in a losing zone; the wins are non-adjacent outliers.

    Awesome Oscillator sens_param chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 3 — TP:SL

    TP:SL Net PF
    1:0.5 −21% 0.90
    1:1 −22% 0.93
    1:1.5 −19% 0.96
    1:2 −51% 0.80
    1:2.5 −42% 0.86
    1:3 −42% 0.86
    1:4 −44% 0.85
    1:5 −30% 0.93

    All eight TP:SL ratios lose. As with the HMA, there is no gross edge for any exit to protect.

    Awesome Oscillator sens_tpsl chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 4 — Five Coins

    Coin Strategy net Buy & Hold
    BTC −47% +12%
    ETH −65% −40%
    SOL −69% −40%
    BNB −55% +17%
    XRP +61% +163%

    Only 1 of 5 coins (XRP) is positive; BTC, ETH, SOL and BNB all lose 47–69%. The signal is broadly destructive across markets.

    Awesome Oscillator coins chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 5 — Yearly

    Year BTC 4H net
    2024 +31%
    2025 −49%
    2026 −21%

    2024 +31%, then 2025 −49% and 2026 −21%. One good year, two bad — the same fading pattern as the other rejects.

    Axis 6 — Friction

    Awesome Oscillator friction chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    −32% gross → −47% net → −57% at 0.11%. A losing signal made worse by 202 trades of cost.

    The Verdict: REJECT

    • Gate 0 — Indicator fidelitypass (standard AO 5/34)
    • Gate 1 — Sanitypass
    • Gate 2 — Frictionfail — −32% gross, −47% net on 4H
    • Gate 3 — Yearlyfail — +31 / −49 / −21
    • Gate 4 — Robustness (length)fail — the default 34 loses; only outliers 21/144 win
    • Gate 5 — Robustness (TP:SL)fail — 0 of 8 positive
    • Gate 6 — Multi-marketfail — 1 of 5 coins
    • Gate 7 — vs Buy & Holdfail — negative on 4 of 5 timeframes

    The Awesome Oscillator’s zero-line cross is a laggy dual-SMA crossover, and it behaves like one: the standard 5/34 loses 47% on BTC 4H (negative before fees), every TP:SL ratio loses, and only 1 of 5 coins survives. The one positive timeframe is the daily — while the default setting loses everywhere else. A momentum oscillator with no momentum edge. Reject.

    FAQ

    The AO has other signals (twin peaks, saucer) — did you test those?
    No — those are discretionary pattern reads that can’t be mechanized without ambiguity. We tested the one unambiguous rule, the zero-line cross. The subjective signals would need their own defined, testable rules first.

    It’s positive on the daily though.
    On one timeframe, while the standard setting loses on the other four and on 4 of 5 coins. One green cell in a sea of red is noise, not a strategy.

    Can I replicate this?
    Yes — AO(5/34) zero cross, public Binance data, 0.06%/side, five coins, nine timeframes. Every table reproduces.

    See also the rejects Keltner and Donchian, and the conditional Vortex.


    Disclaimer: educational research, not financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Never trade money you cannot afford to lose.

  • SSL Channel Strategy Backtest: a Real Gross Edge That Churn Eats Alive

    SSL Channel Strategy Backtest: a Real Gross Edge That Churn Eats Alive

    The SSL Channel is a popular crypto trend tool: two smoothed bands of highs and lows, with a flip when price closes through one. It looks clean on the chart. We ran the standard SSL(10) through the 7-Gate Protocol — and it produced the most interesting failure in this batch. Verdict: reject.

    Methodology

    • Data: Binance spot, Jul 2024–Jul 2026 (2 years), BTC/ETH/SOL/BNB/XRP
    • Timeframes: 5m–1D (9 buckets, incl. resampled)
    • Execution: SSL builds two SMAs — one of highs, one of lows. Close above the high-SMA flips long; close below the low-SMA flips short. Closed-bar, no look-ahead
    • Friction: 0.06%/side (real); 0-fee gross reported too. Benchmark: buy & hold
    • Six axes: timeframe, ssl length, TP:SL, multi-coin, yearly, out-of-sample

    Gate 0 — Fidelity

    SSL builds two SMAs — one of highs, one of lows. Close above the high-SMA flips long; close below the low-SMA flips short. Reproduced exactly (pass).

    SSL Channel equity chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    How It Behaves

    SSL Channel sig chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    SSL genuinely catches trends: at zero fees the BTC 4H returns +51%. The problem is turnover. Price closes back and forth across the bands during consolidations, generating 336 trades — and at real fees those crossings eat the entire edge.

    Axis 1 — Timeframe

    Timeframe Trades Gross (0 fee) Net (real)
    5분 19,529 −66% −100%
    15분 6,256 −32% −100%
    30분 3,072 −45% −99%
    1시간 1,533 −60% −94%
    2시간 740 −33% −73%
    4시간 336 +51% +1%
    6시간 214 +121% +71%
    12시간 116 −12% −23%
    1일 54 +22% +15%

    The 4H nets a mere +1% (from +51% gross), and the daily +15%. Every lower timeframe is deeply negative. There’s a real signal buried here, but only the daily keeps any of it after costs.

    SSL Channel tf chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 2 — SSL length

    SSL length Net PF
    7 −49% 1.00
    10 +1% 1.17
    14 +39% 1.28
    21 −3% 1.13
    28 −46% 0.92
    40 −40% 0.93

    Length 14 is the sweet spot (+39%), 10 barely positive, and everything else negative. A narrow, fragile band of working settings around the default.

    SSL Channel sens_param chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 3 — TP:SL

    TP:SL Net PF
    1:0.5 −32% 0.90
    1:1 +2% 1.03
    1:1.5 +30% 1.11
    1:2 +38% 1.13
    1:2.5 +16% 1.08
    1:3 +5% 1.06
    1:4 −2% 1.04
    1:5 +8% 1.07

    6 of 8 TP:SL ratios are positive — more evidence the underlying signal has merit. But a good exit can’t fix a strategy whose base version nets +1% after fees.

    SSL Channel sens_tpsl chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 4 — Five Coins

    Coin Strategy net Buy & Hold
    BTC +1% +12%
    ETH −38% −40%
    SOL +3% −40%
    BNB −31% +17%
    XRP +190% +163%

    3 of 5 positive, but driven almost entirely by XRP (+191%). BTC nets +1%, SOL +3%, while ETH and BNB lose. Strip out the one big trender and there’s nothing left.

    SSL Channel coins chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 5 — Yearly

    Year BTC 4H net
    2024 +47%
    2025 −48%
    2026 +32%

    2024 strong (+47%), 2025 −48%, 2026 +32%. Net positive over the sample but with a brutal chop year — the classic trend-follower profile, without enough edge to justify it after costs.

    Axis 6 — Friction

    SSL Channel friction chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    This is the whole story: +51% gross → +1% at the real 0.06% → −28% at 0.11%. The 336 trades convert a real edge into breakeven. SSL is a friction casualty.

    The Verdict: REJECT

    • Gate 0 — Indicator fidelitypass (standard SSL(10))
    • Gate 1 — Sanitypass
    • Gate 2 — Frictionfail — +51% gross collapses to +1% net; the edge is entirely eaten by churn
    • Gate 3 — Yearlyfail — +47 / −48 / +32, too dependent on the trending years
    • Gate 4 — Robustness (length)fail — only 10 and 14 positive
    • Gate 5 — Robustness (TP:SL)pass — 6 of 8 positive
    • Gate 6 — Multi-marketfail — 3 of 5, but driven by XRP alone
    • Gate 7 — vs Buy & Holdfail — 4H +1% loses to holding’s +12%

    SSL is the honest tragedy of the batch: a real +51% gross edge on BTC 4H, dragged to +1% net by 336 trades of churn — below buy & hold. Only the daily keeps any edge after fees, and the multi-coin result leans entirely on XRP. A signal with merit and a turnover problem it can’t out-earn. On real spot fees, reject.

    FAQ

    If the gross edge is real, isn’t it worth trading?
    Only if you can slash the turnover. As taught — flip on every band cross — the 336 trades convert +51% gross into +1% net. A confirmation filter or a higher timeframe (the daily kept +15%) is the only way it survives, and that’s a different, unproven system.

    Why does it beat on XRP but not BTC?
    XRP had one enormous clean trend the channel rode; BTC chopped more, so the crossings piled up. Profiting only where a giant trend happened to exist isn’t a repeatable edge.

    Can I replicate this?
    Yes — SSL(10) crossover, public Binance data, 0.06%/side, five coins, nine timeframes. Every table reproduces.

    See also the conditional passes Vortex and Ichimoku, and the rejects Keltner and Donchian.


    Disclaimer: educational research, not financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Never trade money you cannot afford to lose.

  • Hull Moving Average Strategy Backtest: Less Lag, More Whipsaw

    Hull Moving Average Strategy Backtest: Less Lag, More Whipsaw

    The Hull MA is sold as the moving average that ‘removes lag’ — it reacts to price almost instantly. The pitch is that a faster MA means earlier, better trades. We tested the standard HMA(25) slope-flip through the 7-Gate Protocol to see whether less lag actually helps. Verdict: reject.

    Methodology

    • Data: Binance spot, Jul 2024–Jul 2026 (2 years), BTC/ETH/SOL/BNB/XRP
    • Timeframes: 5m–1D (9 buckets, incl. resampled)
    • Execution: The Hull MA (HMA) is a weighted-MA construction that hugs price with minimal lag. Long when the HMA turns up, short when it turns down. Closed-bar, no look-ahead
    • Friction: 0.06%/side (real); 0-fee gross reported too. Benchmark: buy & hold
    • Six axes: timeframe, hma length, TP:SL, multi-coin, yearly, out-of-sample

    Gate 0 — Fidelity

    The Hull MA (HMA) is a weighted-MA construction that hugs price with minimal lag. Long when the HMA turns up, short when it turns down. Reproduced exactly (pass).

    Hull MA equity chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    How It Behaves

    Hull MA sig chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Less lag cuts both ways. The HMA turns on every minor wiggle, so in anything but a strong trend it flips constantly — buying tops and selling bottoms of noise. The result is 388 trades on the 4H and a slow, steady bleed even before fees.

    Axis 1 — Timeframe

    Timeframe Trades Gross (0 fee) Net (real)
    5분 19,329 −36% −100%
    15분 6,560 −47% −100%
    30분 3,266 −56% −99%
    1시간 1,584 −14% −87%
    2시간 819 −12% −67%
    4시간 388 −16% −48%
    6시간 266 +20% −13%
    12시간 135 −30% −41%
    1일 59 −5% −12%

    Not a single timeframe is positive on BTC. The 4H loses 48% (and −17% even at zero fees), so this isn’t a fee problem — the raw signal loses. The lag-free MA is a whipsaw machine.

    Hull MA tf chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 2 — HMA length

    HMA length Net PF
    16 −54% 1.01
    25 −48% 1.00
    36 +21% 1.23
    55 −22% 1.05
    81 −55% 0.82
    100 −19% 1.03

    Only one length (36) is positive out of six, and its neighbours (25, 55) both lose. That lone island is curve-fit noise, not a robust setting.

    Hull MA sens_param chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 3 — TP:SL

    TP:SL Net PF
    1:0.5 −45% 0.86
    1:1 −45% 0.89
    1:1.5 −16% 1.00
    1:2 −48% 0.89
    1:2.5 −38% 0.93
    1:3 −36% 0.94
    1:4 −41% 0.92
    1:5 −40% 0.93

    Damning: every one of the eight TP:SL ratios loses. There is no gross edge for any exit scheme to protect — the entries themselves are the problem.

    Hull MA sens_tpsl chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 4 — Five Coins

    Coin Strategy net Buy & Hold
    BTC −48% +12%
    ETH +23% −40%
    SOL +5% −40%
    BNB +3% +17%
    XRP +105% +163%

    A misleading 4 of 5 coins are ‘positive’, but BTC — the deepest, most liquid market — loses 48%, and the alt gains are small next to XRP’s missed +163% (HMA got +105%). The core market rejects it.

    Hull MA coins chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 5 — Yearly

    Year BTC 4H net
    2024 −1%
    2025 −62%
    2026 +39%

    2024 roughly flat (−1%), 2025 a disaster (−62%), 2026 a partial bounce (+39%). Wildly regime-dependent with a catastrophic drawdown year.

    Axis 6 — Friction

    Hull MA friction chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Friction only twists the knife: −17% gross → −48% net → −65% at 0.11%. 388 trades of whipsaw guarantee costs pile up on top of a losing signal.

    The Verdict: REJECT

    • Gate 0 — Indicator fidelitypass (standard HMA(25))
    • Gate 1 — Sanitypass
    • Gate 2 — Frictionfail — −17% gross, −48% net on 4H
    • Gate 3 — Yearlyfail — −1 / −62 / +39
    • Gate 4 — Robustness (length)fail — only 1 of 6 lengths positive
    • Gate 5 — Robustness (TP:SL)fail — 0 of 8 positive
    • Gate 6 — Multi-marketfail — loses 48% on BTC, the core market
    • Gate 7 — vs Buy & Holdfail — negative on every timeframe

    The Hull MA delivers exactly what less lag buys you: more, earlier, worse trades. It loses on BTC at every timeframe — negative even before fees — every TP:SL ratio loses, and 2025 handed back 62%. Speed without confirmation is just whipsaw. As a standalone slope-flip, the lag-free MA is a reject.

    FAQ

    Isn’t the HMA better than a regular MA?
    It’s smoother and faster to the eye, yes. But ‘faster to react’ also means ‘faster to be fooled’ — in ranges it flips on noise. Our test shows the speed doesn’t translate into profit; if anything it worsens the whipsaw.

    What about using HMA as a trend filter, not an entry?
    As a higher-timeframe direction filter feeding a different entry it might help — that’s a separate system. The standalone slope-flip taught in most videos is what we measured, and it fails.

    Can I replicate this?
    Yes — HMA(25) slope-flip, public Binance data, 0.06%/side, five coins, nine timeframes. Every table reproduces.

    See also the rejects Keltner and Donchian, and the conditional passes Vortex and Ichimoku (daily).


    Disclaimer: educational research, not financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Never trade money you cannot afford to lose.

  • SuperTrend Strategy Backtest: the Famous Indicator Barely Beats Buy & Hold

    SuperTrend Strategy Backtest: the Famous Indicator Barely Beats Buy & Hold

    SuperTrend is the single most-marketed indicator on crypto YouTube — an ATR trailing stop that paints green in uptrends and red in downtrends, sold as a near-magic trend signal. Does the stop-flip actually make money? We ran the standard SuperTrend(10, 3) through the 7-Gate Protocol. Verdict: reject.

    Methodology

    • Data: Binance spot, Jul 2024–Jul 2026 (2 years), BTC/ETH/SOL/BNB/XRP
    • Timeframes: 5m–1D (9 buckets, incl. resampled)
    • Execution: A 10-period ATR trailing stop set a multiplier (default 3) from the mid-price. Close above the stop flips long; close below flips short. Closed-bar, no look-ahead
    • Friction: 0.06%/side (real); 0-fee gross reported too. Benchmark: buy & hold
    • Six axes: timeframe, atr multiplier, TP:SL, multi-coin, yearly, out-of-sample

    Gate 0 — Fidelity

    A 10-period ATR trailing stop set a multiplier (default 3) from the mid-price. Close above the stop flips long; close below flips short. Reproduced exactly (pass).

    SuperTrend equity chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    How It Behaves

    SuperTrend sig chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    SuperTrend is just an ATR trailing stop. In a clean trend it holds the position and looks brilliant; in a range it gets tagged repeatedly, flipping long and short around the same price. On the 4H it barely nets ahead of holding; on the daily it gets whipsawed for −52%.

    Axis 1 — Timeframe

    Timeframe Trades Gross (0 fee) Net (real)
    5분 6,494 −60% −100%
    15분 1,781 −23% −91%
    30분 841 −15% −69%
    1시간 421 −33% −60%
    2시간 206 −19% −37%
    4시간 105 +29% +14%
    6시간 68 +11% +2%
    12시간 36 −18% −22%
    1일 21 −51% −52%

    Only the 4H is positive (+14%), and only by a hair over buy & hold. The daily — where a trend stop should shine — loses 52%. That inversion (worse on the higher timeframe) is a red flag that this is noise, not a trend edge.

    SuperTrend tf chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 2 — ATR multiplier

    ATR multiplier Net PF
    1x −44% 1.03
    2x −10% 1.09
    3x +14% 1.19
    4x −27% 0.95
    5x +30% 1.37

    The multiplier sweep is non-monotonic: 3 and 5 are positive but 1, 2 and 4 lose. A real edge shows a plateau; this zig-zag (a loss sitting between two wins) is the signature of curve-fit luck.

    SuperTrend sens_param chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 3 — TP:SL

    TP:SL Net PF
    1:0.5 +40% 1.39
    1:1 +31% 1.21
    1:1.5 +59% 1.32
    1:2 +2% 1.06
    1:2.5 +3% 1.08
    1:3 −2% 1.05
    1:4 +18% 1.16
    1:5 +45% 1.29

    The one bright spot: 7 of 8 take-profit ratios are positive. But bolting a good exit onto a base strategy that only ties buy & hold doesn’t create an edge — it just harvests mean-reversion the SuperTrend itself doesn’t capture.

    SuperTrend sens_tpsl chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 4 — Five Coins

    Coin Strategy net Buy & Hold
    BTC +14% +12%
    ETH +50% −40%
    SOL −21% −40%
    BNB −7% +17%
    XRP −6% +163%

    Two of five coins positive (BTC +14%, ETH +50%), but SOL, BNB and XRP all lose — and XRP, which tripled, was completely missed (−6% vs +163%).

    SuperTrend coins chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Axis 5 — Yearly

    Year BTC 4H net
    2024 +37%
    2025 −8%
    2026 −10%

    2024 carried it (+37%); 2025 (−8%) and 2026 (−10%) both lost. The ‘edge’ is one good year fading into two losing ones.

    Axis 6 — Friction

    SuperTrend friction chart, StrategyVerdict 7-gate backtest

    Low turnover (105 trades) means friction is gentle: +29% gross → +14% net → +2% at 0.11%. Costs aren’t the problem here — the lack of a real edge is.

    The Verdict: REJECT

    • Gate 0 — Indicator fidelitypass (standard SuperTrend 10/3)
    • Gate 1 — Sanitypass
    • Gate 2 — Frictionpass on 4H (survives to +14% net) — but that edge is trivially thin
    • Gate 3 — Yearlyfail — +37 / −8 / −10, one good year then two losers
    • Gate 4 — Robustness (multiplier)fail — non-monotonic (3,5 win; 1,2,4 lose)
    • Gate 5 — Robustness (TP:SL)pass — 7 of 8 positive
    • Gate 6 — Multi-marketfail — 2 of 5 coins, missed XRP’s +163%
    • Gate 7 — vs Buy & Holdfail — 4H +14% vs +12% is a tie; 1D loses badly

    SuperTrend, the most-hyped indicator on crypto YouTube, ties buy & hold on the 4H (+14% vs +12%) and loses 52% on the daily. Its multiplier sweep zig-zags, it catches only 2 of 5 coins, and its one good year fades into two losing ones. The ATR trailing stop is a fine visual, but as a standalone long/short system it has no reliable edge. Reject.

    FAQ

    But it looks so accurate on the chart!
    In hindsight, on the trending sections. The red/green paint updates with price, so your eye sees only the parts where it was right. Measured forward across all regimes, the 4H merely ties holding and the daily loses.

    Isn’t SuperTrend better as a filter/trailing stop?
    Possibly — as an exit or a regime filter combined with another entry it may add value. That’s a different tool than the standalone flip we tested, and would need its own six-gate run.

    Can I replicate this?
    Yes — SuperTrend(10, 3), public Binance data, 0.06%/side, five coins, nine timeframes. Every table reproduces.

    See also the rejects Keltner, Donchian and Parabolic SAR, and the conditional Vortex.


    Disclaimer: educational research, not financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Never trade money you cannot afford to lose.

  • Vortex Indicator Strategy Backtest: the Crossover That Actually Has an Edge (Conditionally)

    Vortex Indicator Strategy Backtest: the Crossover That Actually Has an Edge (Conditionally)

    The Vortex Indicator (VI) is a trend tool built from two oscillating lines: VI+ measures upward movement and VI- measures downward movement, each normalized by true range. The strategy taught with it is a clean crossover: when VI+ crosses above VI-, go long; when VI- crosses above VI+, go short. Unlike most crossover indicators we’ve tested, this one has a real edge — but a narrow one. We ran the standard VI(14) crossover through the 7-Gate Protocol across six axes. Verdict: conditional.

    Methodology

    • Data: Binance spot, Jul 2024–Jul 2026 (2 years), BTC/ETH/SOL/BNB/XRP
    • Timeframes: 5m–1D (9 buckets, incl. resampled)
    • Execution: VI(14); position flips when VI+/VI- cross; closed-bar, no look-ahead
    • Friction: 0.06%/side (real); 0-fee gross reported too. Benchmark: buy & hold
    • Six axes: timeframe, period, TP:SL, multi-coin, yearly, out-of-sample

    Gate 0 — Fidelity

    Standard Vortex: VM+ = |High − prior Low|, VM- = |Low − prior High|, each summed over 14 bars and divided by the summed true range. Long when VI+ > VI-, short when VI- > VI+. Reproduced exactly (pass).

    The Exact Rules

    • Signal: VI+ crosses above VI- → long; VI- crosses above VI+ → short (stop-and-reverse)
    • Default: period 14
    Vortex crossover BTC 4H equity plus 39 net, gross plus 133, beats buy and hold plus 12

    Here’s what makes Vortex different from Keltner, Donchian, Aroon and the rest: on the BTC 4H, it ends at +39% net versus buy & hold’s +12%, and the 0-fee gross line reaches +133%. There is a genuine trend-following edge here — the crossover catches the big directional moves. The catch is where that edge lives.

    How It Works: Riding the Trend, Flipping in Chop

    Vortex VI plus and VI minus lines crossover on BTC 4H, rides trends flips in chop

    When BTC trends, VI+ and VI- separate cleanly and the position holds the move — that’s where the money is made. When price ranges, the two lines braid together and the strategy flips back and forth, bleeding fees. The whole verdict comes down to keeping the good regime and surviving the bad one.

    Axis 1 — Timeframe (where the edge lives)

    Timeframe Trades Gross (0 fee) Net (real)
    5m 21,822 −27% −100%
    15m 7,496 −40% −100%
    30m 3,815 +81% −98%
    1h 1,872 +2% −89%
    2h 929 −42% −81%
    4h 430 +133% +39%
    6h 300 −11% −38%
    12h 134 +13% −4%
    1D 80 +80% +64%

    This is the crux. On 4H (+39%) and 1D (+64%) the strategy is genuinely profitable net of fees. But every timeframe below 4H is a disaster — the 5m loses everything (−100% across 21,822 trades). The edge is real but lives only on the higher timeframes, where trends persist and trade count (and fees) stay low.

    Vortex net return by timeframe, only 4H plus 39 and 1D plus 64 positive, lower timeframes minus 100

    Axis 2 — Period (the fragility)

    Period n Net PF
    7 −46% 1.07
    10 +12% 1.23
    14 (default) +39% 1.31
    21 −47% 0.97
    28 −56% 0.92
    42 −6% 1.15

    Here’s the weakness. The default 14 is the best (+39%), and 10 also works (+12%), so there’s a small plateau at the short end — but stretch the period to 21 or 28 and it collapses to −47% / −56%. The edge is sensitive to the period choice, which is a real robustness concern even though the popular default happens to sit in the good zone.

    Vortex period sensitivity, only 10 to 14 positive, 21 and 28 collapse

    Axis 3 — TP:SL (the strength)

    TP:SL Net PF
    1:0.5 −8% 0.99
    1:1 +18% 1.08
    1:1.5 +47% 1.15
    1:2 +39% 1.13
    1:2.5 +21% 1.09
    1:3 +20% 1.09
    1:4 +26% 1.11
    1:5 +36% 1.13

    This is where Vortex earns its conditional pass. Every take-profit ratio from 1:1 to 1:5 is positive (PF 1.08–1.15), peaking at 1:1.5 (+47%). A robust profit surface across exit settings is exactly what the rejects lacked — it says the edge isn’t an artifact of one lucky stop.

    Vortex TP:SL sensitivity every ratio 1:1 to 1:5 positive, robust

    Axis 4 — Five Coins

    Coin Vortex net Buy & Hold Note
    BTC +39% +12% beats hold
    ETH −18% −40% loses (still > hold)
    SOL −2% −40% ~flat
    BNB −34% +17% loses to hold
    XRP +393% +163% rode the big trend

    Multi-market is where it stumbles. It beats hold on BTC (+39%) and XRP (+393%) — both strong trenders — and loses less than hold on ETH/SOL, but it’s outright negative on ETH and BNB. So call it 2 clear wins of 5. The edge is real but concentrated in the coins that actually trended.

    Vortex five coins 4H, BTC plus 39 and XRP plus 393 win, ETH and BNB lose

    Axis 5 — Yearly

    Year BTC 4H net
    2024 +102%
    2025 −39%
    2026 (to Jul) +13%

    2024 was huge (+102%), 2025 gave back −39% in the chop, and 2026 recovered (+13%). Unlike the rejects, the full sample stays clearly positive — but the −39% in 2025 shows the edge is regime-dependent, not all-weather.

    Axis 6 — Friction & the Churn Problem

    Vortex friction gate gross plus 133 to plus 39 net at real fee, minus 10 at high fee

    Friction (BTC 4H): gross +133% → +96% at 0.02% → +39% at the real 0.06% → −10% at 0.11%. The edge survives realistic spot fees, but the 430 trades make it churn-sensitive — on a higher-fee venue it disappears. This is a low-fee, higher-timeframe strategy or nothing.

    The Verdict: CONDITIONAL

    • Gate 0 — Indicator fidelitypass (standard VI(14))
    • Gate 1 — Sanitypass (closed-bar crossover, no look-ahead)
    • Gate 2 — Frictionconditional — 4H gross +133% survives to +39% net, but every timeframe below 4H is destroyed and 0.11% fees kill it
    • Gate 3 — Yearly consistencyconditional — full sample clearly positive, but 2025 lost 39%
    • Gate 4 — Robustness (period)fail — only periods 10–14 work; 21+ collapse
    • Gate 5 — Robustness (TP:SL)pass — every ratio 1:1–1:5 positive
    • Gate 6 — Multi-marketfail — 2 of 5 coins clearly win (BTC, XRP)
    • Gate 7 — vs Buy & Holdpass — beats hold on 4H (+39% vs +12%), 1D (+64%), and XRP

    Vortex is the rare crossover with a real edge — but a fragile, conditional one. On the 4H and daily, in trending coins, at spot fees, with the period left near its default, it genuinely beats buy & hold and holds up across every take-profit setting. Take any of those props away — drop to a 5-minute chart, stretch the period to 21, trade it on ETH/BNB, or pay 0.11% — and the edge evaporates. It is not a set-and-forget, all-market system. As a higher-timeframe trend filter used with discipline, it passes; as the plug-and-play crossover it’s usually sold as, it doesn’t.

    FAQ

    So it actually works?
    On the 4H and daily, yes — net of realistic fees, on BTC and other trenders. That’s a genuine result and we’re not going to pretend otherwise. But “works on 4H/1D BTC at low fees with period 14” is a much narrower claim than “the Vortex crossover is profitable,” which is false on most timeframes and two of five coins.

    Why does it die on lower timeframes?
    Two reasons: intraday noise makes VI+/VI- braid constantly (whipsaw), and the trade count explodes (21,822 trades on 5m) so fees alone erase everything. Trend edges need persistence and low turnover; both live on the higher timeframes.

    Can I replicate this?
    Yes — VI(14) crossover, public Binance data, 0.06%/side, five coins, nine timeframes. Every table reproduces.

    See also the conditional passes Ichimoku (daily) and VWAP, and the rejects Keltner, Donchian, ADX/DMI.


    Disclaimer: educational research, not financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Never trade money you cannot afford to lose.