Wider trade stops
Near breakeven historically. The range still crosses zero, so it is not a proven edge.
Research · Open results
A record of tested strategies, uncertain findings and ideas that did not survive trading costs. No cherry-picked winning screenshots.
These numbers come from historical simulations, not real-money trading.
| Study | Mean net R | 90% range | Trades | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Awaiting verified data | ||||
A range that crosses zero is not evidence of a dependable edge. Many variants were explored, so an apparent winner needs more validation.
Change the modeled cost per buy or sell. This replays the historical study, not a brokerage account.
Historical study · Jan 2024 – Apr 2026 · 28 months · 22,106 simulated trades
At 0.05% per buy or sell, the study ends near −2,648 R.
Each idea’s pass mark was written down before it ran.
Near breakeven historically. The range still crosses zero, so it is not a proven edge.
Higher scores did not pick better trades than lower ones.
Only trading unusually active stocks did not survive costs.
Small losses on most trades once costs were counted.
Buying stocks that opened lower showed no reliable edge.
More than ten thousand pre-registered ideas across stocks, news, filings and crypto. None held up on years they had never seen.
Dozens of free community bots, run in their own software. None made money on the newer data.
Buying right after a big jump did worse than random picks, in stocks and in crypto.
A handful of ideas beat random picks in both periods. Not proven yet; each gets one final clean test.
Free sources rarely say whether results came before or after the market.