‹ ALL STRATEGIES
Test it yourself · our chart, our data Opening Range Gap “70% by 10:00”
Strategy byICTInner Circle Trader · YouTube
1,040 sessions · 2022-07-11 to 2026-09-17 · 1-min bars · 09:30–10:00 window
Tested and published by TradingBite Research·Updated 06 October 2026·How we test, and who we are·Tell us we got it wrong
—
the gap encroachment mirrored control
day 1 —
SESSION MEASURED
—
—
LINE AT %
Which level?   The mirrored level sits the same distance from the open, on the opposite side. If the gap were the reason price returns, it should fill far less often.
Both levels are measured every session, whichever one you are trading — the panel below shows each of them filling or not. Run enough sessions and the two rates land on top of each other. Drag to pan; scroll zooms; double-click resets.
— —

—

Right now —
Signal
waiting
No level touched yet this session.
Your trading
trades
0
win rate
—
total
$0.00
per trade
—
as a trade
$-3.04
Traded literally this loses $-3.04 a trade over 1040 sessions — and in every gap bucket.
The strategy frozen rules
  1. The opening range gap is the distance from yesterday’s 16:14 close (ICT’s own definition) to today’s 09:30 open.
  2. Consequent encroachment is the midpoint of that gap.
  3. The claim: price has roughly a 70% chance of reaching it by 10:00. Stated at least six times across the playlist.
  4. Traded literally: on at the open, off at the level, flat at 10:00 whether it filled or not. No stop is named in the claim, so we do not invent one.
  5. The control: the same distance from the open, mirrored to the opposite side. If the gap matters, this should fill far less often.
The gapyesterday’s 16:14 close → today’s open
The levelthe midpoint
Window09:30 – 10:00
Claimed rate~70%
Measured rate55.7%
Wrong side fills55.4%
Verdictrejected — the control fills as often
Your test 0 / 20
Trade 20 sessions and we will tell you what your test proves.
Your trades this session onward
Take a trade when a level is touched.
This session
Your running average
sessions
0
claimed
—
ICT level
—
wrong side
—
difference
—
—
What we found over 1040 sessions

Over 1040 sessions the midpoint was reached by 10:00 55.7% of the time, not 70%.

And the rate is almost entirely a function of how far away the level is: 93.5% on gaps under 10 points, 90.6% at 10–25, 73.8% at 25–50, 61.9% at 50–100, 36.4% at 100–200 and 17.4% beyond 200. The ~70% figure holds only for a narrow 25–50 point band — not on the wide-gap days the claim is usually narrated over.

The control settles it. A level placed the same distance from the open but on the wrong side entirely fills 55.4% of the time — slightly more often than ICT’s. It is distance from the open doing the work, not the gap.

Traded literally — on at the open, off at the level, flat at 10:00 — it loses $-3.04 a trade, $-3164 over 1040 sessions, and it loses in every gap bucket.

Where this comes from the claim, before the test
SourcePaste the video id into sources.json and rebuild to embed the original here.
What it claims
The levelthe midpoint of the gap from yesterday's close to today's open
The claim~70% chance price reaches it by 10:00
How often statedat least six times across the playlist
The close used16:14 last print, defended at length
Costs includednever mentioned

Everything above is taken from the source and frozen. The chart tests those exact words — nothing added, nothing softened.

Journal — your saved sessions 0 saved
Your test · complete

—

—

You against the rules

How your trades ended

Which line you traded

Something look wrong? Or want to ask about this test?

If a number here looks off, the chart misbehaves, or you think the rules were coded wrong — say so. Pages on this site have shipped with real mistakes and been corrected. The links below fill in what you were looking at, so the report is actually fixable.

REPORT A PROBLEM ASK ABOUT THIS STRATEGY “YOU CODED THE RULES WRONG”

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 ›