Tested and published by TradingBite Research·Updated 06 October 2026·How we test, and who we are·Tell us we got it wrong
Strategy Lab

Every strategy we have tested, and what actually happened

Strategies taught on YouTube and in paid courses, converted into exact rules and run against years of real futures data with full costs. Search for one, read the verdict, then trade it yourself on our chart and see for your own eyes.

⚲
By subject Every ICT strategy Every order flow claim Every gold strategy

“These traders are verified. Your site says they fail. Who is wrong?”

Neither. We are not testing the trader. We are testing the rules they teach.

Then how do they make money? — the full answer

Their results are real and we do not dispute them. Second place in the Robbins World Cup. Top three in the futures division. Verified eight figures. What we test is the mechanical skeleton — the parts stated precisely enough to code — on years of real data with real costs.

And every one of them tells you that skeleton is not the whole method:

  • “it’s really sensitive to market… you cannot just automate it”
  • “there’s nothing anyone could teach you that will beat the time you invest staring at charts”
  • “no system is purely mechanical. There’s always some discretion”

So the finding is not that anyone is lying. It is sharper than that: the teachable part is not the edge. The distance between the written rules and their results is judgement built over years — and that is precisely what a video, a PDF or a course cannot hand you.

Which matters, because the thing being sold is always “learn this rule and you will make money.” That is the claim we test, and on this data it does not hold.

Three things that keep this honest

  1. One passed. The tests are not built to fail. When a strategy clears every check we say so.
  2. We publish the mismatches. Where a trader’s market or timeframe is not the one we hold data for, the page says so in full. Some of them trade charts we simply cannot test.
  3. The method and the rules are published. If an implementation is wrong, it is findable — and we have corrected our own published results when it was.

We do not test whether a trader is good. We test whether their rules, followed exactly, make money. Those are different questions, and only the second one is the one you are about to act on.

The one that survived

ORB + Component Breadth — The One That Passed

The only strategy that beat its own control. Still in forward testing.

full access$29 one payment
Profit factor
1.98
Significance
p 0.0035
Win rate
49.5%
Trades tested
212

Why it costs money

  • It beat its own control. A naive version of the same breakout, with the day filter removed, loses money. That gap is the edge.
  • It survived the full battery: real costs, out-of-sample split, family-wise permutation over every variant we searched, drop-best-year, and a trade-order bootstrap.
  • 24 other families failed the same tests. The ones we have written up are free to read here, failures included, so you can check the method before you trust this one.

What we are not claiming

  • Still forward testing. 1 trade logged of a 30-trade target.
  • 49.5% win rate. Half of these lose. The money is in the 1:3 payoff.
  • 212 trades over 4 years is about one setup a day, not a full-time income.
TEST IT ON OUR CHART — $29 Everything else in this library is free, including the 24 families that failed.

These are our backtest results on historical data, not a forecast and not a promise of income. Run the same rules yourself and your numbers will differ — different fills, different costs, a different stretch of market. Past results do not predict future ones. Nothing here is financial advice. Terms and full disclaimer ›

The strongest candidate, and not finished

H4 200-Lot Footprint First Retest (Gold)

The strongest candidate we have. Still one test short of approval.

full access$19 one payment
Profit factor
1.51
Expectancy
+0.30R
Win rate
48.1%
Trades tested
156

Why it costs money

  • The interval excludes zero. Resampled, mean R runs 0.063 to 0.538 - the edge is small, and it is there.
  • It holds up split three ways, and the out-of-sample halves are the STRONGER ones: profit factor 1.35 training, 1.97 validation, 2.15 test. That is the opposite of a curve fit.
  • It beats a benchmark that is genuinely hard. Gold rose 186% across the sample, but all of it happened overnight - being long the day session lost $68,765. This made money against that.
  • Tick-exact execution, not bar approximations, over 156 trades.

What we are not claiming

  • IT HAS NOT PASSED. Family-wise p is 0.077 against our 0.05 bar - the correction for how many variants were searched. ORB clears the same gate at 0.0035. This is the one test it is short of.
  • 156 trades over six years is about three a week, and a 6.9R drawdown is in the record.
  • 48.1% win rate. Half of these lose.
  • You are buying the strongest thing we have found and not a proven edge. If that distinction does not appeal, buy the ORB one or nothing.
TEST IT ON OUR CHART — $19 Everything else in this library is free, including the 24 families that failed.

These are our backtest results on historical data, not a forecast and not a promise of income. Run the same rules yourself and your numbers will differ — different fills, different costs, a different stretch of market. Past results do not predict future ones. Nothing here is financial advice. Terms and full disclaimer ›

Drift VWAP Pullback — Does It Actually Work?

Matio Kanti / SQR Capital · MNQ

His win rate is real. It barely breaks even, and it does not clearly beat just holding the session.

2,975 trades · 62.5% win · PF 1.02
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

The Wyckoff Spring — Does the 100-Year-Old Setup Still Work?

Richard Wyckoff · MNQ

With every filter it beats a random level - on 33 trades, and still not an ordinary dip.

32 trades · 50.0% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

Moving Average Crossover — Does the First Rule Everyone Learns Work?

TradingBite · MNQ

On Nasdaq it neither makes nor loses money clear of the noise. On gold it clearly loses.

1,652 trades · 34.9% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

RSI Overbought & Oversold — Does Buying Under 30 Work?

TradingBite · MNQ

Nothing here is clear of the noise either way, on either market.

492 trades · 51.6% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

Trader Mayne's Framework — His Higher-Timeframe Rule Holds, His Entry Does Not

Trader Mayne · MNQ

On his own rules nothing clears the noise, and his higher-timeframe rule helps on every lens.

966 trades · 15.1% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

Marci Silfrain's Measured Move — Does the Measurement Mean Anything?

Marci Silfrain · MNQ

On her own rules nothing clears the noise either way. Unproven, not failed.

75 trades · 30.7% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

Tori Trades’ Action Line and Safety Line — Tested on Her Own Rules

Tori Trades · GC

Her model makes money at every setting we tried. Too few trades to call it proven.

39 trades · 61.5% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

TG Capital’s Trident — Tested on His Own Entry, Stop and Exits

TG Capital (Tyler) · MNQ

On his rules gold makes money and his London window helps. Too few trades to call it proven.

25 trades · 28.0% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

Trader Kane’s 50% Model — Tested on His Own Entry, Stop and Break-Even

Trader Kane · MNQ

On his own rules it beats a random entry on both markets. Not enough yet to call it proven.

660 trades · 59.5% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

The Engulfing Candle — Three Teachers' Rules, Tested on Gold

David Jones / Trading Rush · GC

None of the three versions makes money clear of the noise on gold.

116 trades · 55.2% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

The 9:30 Nasdaq Open — Five Teachers' Rules, Tested

Pat / PFK alpha and three more · MNQ

None of the five makes money clear of the noise on Nasdaq.

1,672 trades · 23.3% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

Break of Structure — Tested 14,991 Times

our own research · MNQ

A coin flip. The loss is exactly the commission.

14,991 signals · 0 of 168 settings made money
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

Dealing Range Theory (DRT) — Are the 25/50/75 Levels Real?

Ali Khan (Dealing Range Theory) · MNQ

Every level in a range looks like it works - so a random line has to be the test.

0 of 24 settings made money · p 1.0
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

The Opening Range Gap — Is It Really 70%?

ICT (Inner Circle Trader) · MNQ

56%, not 70% - and the wrong side of the open fills just as often.

70.0% claimed · 55.7% measured · 1,040 sessions
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

TGIF — Does the Week Really Give Back 20-30%?

ICT (Inner Circle Trader) · MNQ

Applied as instructed, it hit the claimed band in 4 of 45 weeks.

20-30% claimed · hit 9 times · 45 setups
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

Order Flow — Is the Delta Feed Worth Paying For?

TradingBite · MNQ

The free, price-only version loses less. Every time.

7,521 trades · 31.9% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

Pyramiding — Does Building a Position in Clips Help?

ICT · MNQ

Every rung of the ladder made it worse.

390 trades · 34.1% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

Fabio Valentini's Model — Do the Node and the Big Print Do Anything?

Fabio Valentini · MNQ

On his own management both models still lose.

883 trades · 7.6% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

Marco Accettone's Liquidity Model — Does the Strict Rule Do Anything?

Marco Accettone · MNQ

On his own stop it loses, clear of the noise, and loses to simply holding.

506 trades · 13.8% win
TEST IT ON OUR CHART ›

How to read this. 21 strategies listed, 1 passed, 8 failed. A verdict is not an opinion — it is the same seven checks applied to every strategy, whoever teaches it. These are tests of publicly taught methods on historical data, published for education. Not advice, and not a promise of future results. Every result, including the failures › Terms and full disclaimer ›

Paid strategy

ORB + Component Breadth — The One That Passed

The only strategy that beat its own control. Still in forward testing.

What you get

What we are not claiming

Past results do not predict future returns. This is research, not financial advice, and it is not a signal service.

How this was produced

The rules come from the teacher's own public video or write-up — or, for a textbook method or our own research, the page says so. They are coded as stated and run over years of futures data from a commercial market-data vendor, with commission charged on every trade; slippage is not modelled. Where a teacher gives no number, every value in the plausible range is tested and all of them are shown — not only the best one. Each page states the market, the period, the sample and the costs used.

Written with software. The tests are code, and the code and much of the writing were produced with AI assistance. Every result comes from that research code. The words around the numbers are written from those results — if you find one that disagrees with its own numbers, tell us and it gets fixed.

If a number here is wrong, say so. Email hello@tradingbite.net with the page and what you think is wrong. If a teacher believes their rules were read incorrectly, tell us how they should be read and we will re-run the test and publish the result, whichever way it goes.

This is not advice. These are tests of publicly taught methods on historical data, published so you can check them yourself. Past results do not predict future results. Trading futures can lose you more than you put in. Terms and full disclaimer ›