Most pages about trading strategies show only the ones that worked. Without the ones that were thrown away, there is no way to judge whether anything survived a real test or whether the test was built around the answer.
This is every strategy we have tested and published, in one table: most coded from a teacher's own rules, a few textbook methods and a few of our own, each labelled. Each row shows the number that decided its verdict, and the 95% range wherever the test produces one. 8 failed, 12 are unproven, and 1 passed. Click a strategy's name to replay its trades on our chart.
Costs are commission only; slippage is not modelled, so treat every result as slightly optimistic.
| strategy | verdict | result | 95% range, or the test | sample | what decided it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORB + Component Breadth — The One That Passed our own research | PASSED | $37.84 a trade | family-wise p = 0.0035; out of sample $39.75 a trade | 212 trades | The only strategy that beat its own control. Still in forward testing. |
| Drift VWAP Pullback — Does It Actually Work? Matio Kanti / SQR Capital | UNPROVEN | $2.61 a day | −$9.29 to $14.83 a day | 1,009 days | His win rate is real. It barely breaks even, and it does not clearly beat just holding the session. |
| H4 200-Lot Footprint First Retest (Gold) our own research | UNPROVEN | +0.3R a trade | family-wise p = 0.077; control not yet run | 156 trades | The strongest candidate we have. Still one test short of approval. |
| Marci Silfrain's Measured Move — Does the Measurement Mean Anything? Marci Silfrain | UNPROVEN | $8.22 a trade | −$282.78 to $320.65 | 75 trades | On her own rules nothing clears the noise either way. Unproven, not failed. |
| Moving Average Crossover — Does the First Rule Everyone Learns Work? TradingBite | UNPROVEN | −$1.95 a trade | −$10.09 to $6.85 | 1,652 trades | On Nasdaq it neither makes nor loses money clear of the noise. On gold it clearly loses. |
| RSI Overbought & Oversold — Does Buying Under 30 Work? TradingBite | UNPROVEN | −$0.41 a trade | −$24.37 to $22.95 | 492 trades | Nothing here is clear of the noise either way, on either market. |
| TG Capital’s Trident — Tested on His Own Entry, Stop and Exits TG Capital (Tyler) | UNPROVEN | $289.40 a trade | −$379.61 to $1,191.05 | 25 trades | On his rules gold makes money and his London window helps. Too few trades to call it proven. |
| The 9:30 Nasdaq Open — Five Teachers' Rules, Tested Pat / PFK alpha and three more | UNPROVEN | $1.16 a trade | −$4.36 to $6.82 | 1,672 trades | None of the five makes money clear of the noise on Nasdaq. |
| The Engulfing Candle — Three Teachers' Rules, Tested on Gold David Jones / Trading Rush | UNPROVEN | $127.07 a trade | −$649.06 to $897.40 | 116 trades | None of the three versions makes money clear of the noise on gold. |
| The Wyckoff Spring — Does the 100-Year-Old Setup Still Work? Richard Wyckoff | UNPROVEN | $214.64 a trade | $66.02 to $375.23 | 33 trades | With every filter it beats a random level - on 33 trades, and still not an ordinary dip. |
| Tori Trades’ Action Line and Safety Line — Tested on Her Own Rules Tori Trades | UNPROVEN | $666.14 a trade | −$90.66 to $1,461.93 | 39 trades | Her model makes money at every setting we tried. Too few trades to call it proven. |
| Trader Kane’s 50% Model — Tested on His Own Entry, Stop and Break-Even Trader Kane | UNPROVEN | $1.58 a trade | −$4.14 to $7.22 | 660 trades | On his own rules it beats a random entry on both markets. Not enough yet to call it proven. |
| Trader Mayne's Framework — His Higher-Timeframe Rule Holds, His Entry Does Not Trader Mayne | UNPROVEN | −$141.88 a trade | −$322.63 to $46.34 | 966 trades | On his own rules nothing clears the noise, and his higher-timeframe rule helps on every lens. |
| Break of Structure — Tested 14,991 Times our own research | FAILED | −$4.97 a trade | −$7.10 to −$2.79 | 2,306 trades | A coin flip. The loss is exactly the commission. |
| Dealing Range Theory (DRT) — Are the 25/50/75 Levels Real? Ali Khan (Dealing Range Theory) | FAILED | levels no better than a random line | 0 of 24 settings made money; best −$2.29 a trade | 1,040 sessions | Every level in a range looks like it works - so a random line has to be the test. |
| Fabio Valentini's Model — Do the Node and the Big Print Do Anything? Fabio Valentini | FAILED | −$6.37 a trade | −$9.28 to −$3.32 | 958 trades | On his own management both models still lose. |
| Marco Accettone's Liquidity Model — Does the Strict Rule Do Anything? Marco Accettone | FAILED | −$12.53 a trade | −$21.49 to −$3.05 | 506 trades | On his own stop it loses, clear of the noise, and loses to simply holding. |
| Order Flow — Is the Delta Feed Worth Paying For? TradingBite | FAILED | −$7.90 a trade | −$11.82 to −$3.85 | 2,347 trades | The free, price-only version loses less. Every time. |
| Pyramiding — Does Building a Position in Clips Help? ICT | FAILED | −$4.37 a trade, full ladder | one entry alone $2.43 a trade | 390 trades | Every rung of the ladder made it worse. |
| TGIF — Does the Week Really Give Back 20-30%? ICT (Inner Circle Trader) | FAILED | 4 of 45 weeks in the claimed band | median give-back 75.0%, claimed 20–30% | 45 weeks | Applied as instructed, it hit the claimed band in 4 of 45 weeks. |
| The Opening Range Gap — Is It Really 70%? ICT (Inner Circle Trader) | FAILED | 55.7% filled, claimed 70% | a level on the wrong side fills 55.4% | 1,040 sessions | 56%, not 70% - and the wrong side of the open fills just as often. |
The range is a bootstrap 95% interval for the average, in the same units as the result beside it — per trade, or per day where the result is per day. Some tests measure a claim rather than a trade (a fill rate, a weekly give-back); those show the measurement that settled the claim instead of a range. The range is also why most verdicts here are “unproven” rather than “failed”: on a few hundred trades, an average of a few dollars proves very little, and saying so is more useful than picking a side.
Where a teacher left a number unstated, every value in range was tested and the strategy's own page shows all of them. The figure here is the version each page leads with, and the reason column says when that is a filtered or best-case version rather than the plain rule. How we test ›
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 ›