Best Validated Version, Per Strategy
One row per market × engine × strategy combo (default 1H/4H pair, same universe as the Strategy Priority Ranking page), PLUS one additional row for every validated mechanics/entry/sizing finding on top of a base combo -- currently 5, all gold, all in the green Filter column below (a Tokyo/Asian session entry filter, two alternate stop mechanisms, one structure-detection param change, and a conviction-sizing scheme built on the session filter). Each variant row is its own ranked entry, layered on top of but NOT replacing its base combo's own (always-unfiltered/unmodified) baseline row -- the delta line underneath each variant row shows what changed. Every other row's "None (no validated filter)" means candidate filters WERE tested (a VWAP entry-confirmation filter under three different momentum definitions, a VIX daily regime filter, and the session filter swept across all 6 markets) and did not survive walk-forward, not that nothing was tried. See FINDINGS.md for the full writeup of every validated result and HANDOFF.md for every negative one. "Survives costs" mirrors the Trading Costs methodology (Vantage FX / Bybit rate cards). Ranked by the same risk-adjusted score the Priority Ranking page uses -- (MC probability of profit − MC risk of ruin), scaled down for samples under 200 trades, any combo that doesn't survive costs ranked last -- computed from each row's OWN numbers (i.e. a variant row is ranked on its own filtered/modified stats, its base combo's row is ranked on baseline). Not sorted by Monte Carlo median net profit alone: that ignores risk of ruin and drawdown entirely, so a high-median/high-ruin-risk combo would misleadingly outrank a lower-median/low-risk one. Avg R / Total R / PF are the single REALIZED historical result from this strategy's actual trade history. MC Med. PF / MC Med. Avg R are different: the MEDIAN across 2,000 bootstrap-resampled alternate trade sequences (same methodology as Prob. Profit / Risk of Ruin / Median DD, all four Monte Carlo columns share the same simulation) -- a forward-looking view of what's typical if this strategy's own historical trade distribution repeats, not a different or better estimate of the past. The two Avg R figures are usually close (same underlying trade pool) but can diverge on thin samples, where a skewed win/loss distribution pulls the bootstrap median away from the raw historical mean.
| # | Market | Engine | Strat. | Filter | Trades | Win % | Avg R | Total R | PF | MC Med. PF | MC Med. Avg R | Prob. Profit | Risk of Ruin | Median DD | Survives |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gold (XAU/USD) | Original | B | Stop mechanism: ENGINE=lookback_10 (10-bar swing-stop lookback, vs. 30 baseline) | 744 | 23.92% | +0.213R | +158.6R | 1.29 | 1.28 | +0.210R | 92.7% | 4.6% | 40.6% | Yes |
| vs. unfiltered baseline (755 trades, net avg +0.170R, 89.95% prob. profit, 5.4% risk of ruin, 40.42% median drawdown): 3/3 walk-forward folds held up net of costs. Parameter sweep (10/15/20/50/75/100) shows two flat plateaus, not a fine-tuned single point -- only crossing between bands (10-20 vs. 50-100) matters. Does NOT hold for Strategy A on the same market (2/3 folds) and does NOT stack with Finding 4 (no_event_bias) -- combined net avg R (+0.205) is slightly below either alone. | |||||||||||||||
| 2 | Gold (XAU/USD) | Original | A | Tokyo/Asian session only (00:00-07:00 UTC) | 326 | 32.21% | +0.142R | +46.4R | 1.24 | 1.22 | +0.132R | 85.3% | 0.3% | 22.8% | Yes |
| vs. unfiltered baseline (1125 trades, net avg +0.033R, 64.0% prob. profit, 13.85% risk of ruin, 43.35% median drawdown): 3/3 walk-forward folds held up net of costs. Does NOT generalize to other markets or to Strategy B on this same market (2/3 folds) -- a 60-test sweep across all 6 markets found only this one result distinguishable from pure chance. See the Strategy Priority Ranking page's "Tested" note for the full writeup. | |||||||||||||||
| 3 | Gold (XAU/USD) | Original | B | None | 755 | 24.37% | +0.170R | +128.7R | 1.23 | 1.23 | +0.168R | 90.0% | 5.4% | 40.4% | Yes |
| 4 | Gold (XAU/USD) | Original | B | Structure param: ENGINE=no_event_bias (use_event_bias=False) | 674 | 23.0% | +0.211R | +142.2R | 1.28 | 1.28 | +0.212R | 89.8% | 6.8% | 40.2% | Yes |
| vs. unfiltered baseline (755 trades, net avg +0.170R, 89.95% prob. profit, 5.4% risk of ruin, 40.42% median drawdown): 3/3 walk-forward folds held up net of costs. Structurally meaningful, not an arbitrary flag flip: collapses the original engine's two-bias system toward the variant (LuxAlgo) engine's single self-referential bias. Does NOT stack with Finding 2 (lookback_10) -- combined result is slightly worse than either alone. Unlike Findings 2/3, NOT a uniform Monte Carlo win: risk of ruin ticks up slightly (5.4% -> 6.8%) even as avg R and total R both improve. | |||||||||||||||
| 5 | Gold (XAU/USD) | Original | A | Stop mechanism: ENGINE=atrstop_15 (1.5×ATR14 stop, replaces swing-based) | 1156 | 30.19% | +0.094R | +108.9R | 1.16 | 1.16 | +0.093R | 79.2% | 12.2% | 44.0% | Yes |
| vs. unfiltered baseline (1125 trades, net avg +0.033R, 64.0% prob. profit, 13.85% risk of ruin, 43.35% median drawdown): 3/3 walk-forward folds held up net of costs. Gross avg R improves across nearly the whole 0.8x-3.0x ATR multiplier range tested -- a regional effect, not a narrow single-point fit. Does NOT hold for Strategy B on the same market (2/3 folds). Drawdown ticks up very slightly (43.35% -> 44.02%) even as every other metric improves. | |||||||||||||||
| 6 | Nasdaq 100 (US Tech 100) | Original | A | None | 1170 | 34.02% | +0.053R | +61.7R | 1.10 | 1.10 | +0.053R | 74.0% | 10.2% | 42.0% | Yes |
| 7 | Gold (XAU/USD) | Original | A | Tokyo filter signal, sized not filtered (1.5×/0.75× conviction sizing) | 1125 | 32.09% | +0.033R | +36.7R | 1.06 | n/a | +0.033R | 73.1% | 11.9% | 43.0% | Yes |
| vs. unfiltered baseline (1125 trades, net avg +0.033R, 61.15% prob. profit, 16.65% risk of ruin, 44.42% median drawdown): Enhancement of the Tokyo/Asian session finding above (Finding 1), not an independent result -- inherits its scope and caveats entirely. avg R/total R are IDENTICAL to the unfiltered baseline by construction (sizing doesn't change any trade's R-multiple); only the account-level Monte Carlo columns differ, via a joint (r_multiple, risk_pct) bootstrap. Checked 5 multiplier pairs: only genuine reallocation (boost Tokyo AND reduce elsewhere) helps -- boosting Tokyo alone without reducing others makes risk of ruin WORSE than flat sizing. 1.5×/0.75× is an illustrative choice, not an optimized one. | |||||||||||||||
| 8 | Gold (XAU/USD) | Original | A | None | 1125 | 32.09% | +0.033R | +36.7R | 1.06 | 1.06 | +0.033R | 64.0% | 13.8% | 43.4% | Yes |
| 9 | Bitcoin (BTC/USD) | Variant | A | None | 99 | 22.22% | +0.512R | +50.7R | 1.64 | 1.57 | +0.466R | 80.0% | 0.1% | 21.8% | Yes |
| 10 | Bitcoin (BTC/USD) | Variant | B | None | 73 | 17.81% | +0.928R | +67.8R | 2.07 | 1.97 | +0.846R | 88.4% | 0.0% | 18.3% | Yes |
| 11 | Euro / US Dollar (EUR/USD) | Variant | A | None | 85 | 25.88% | +0.107R | +9.1R | 1.15 | 1.12 | +0.087R | 58.5% | 0.0% | 17.6% | Yes |
| 12 | Nasdaq 100 (US Tech 100) | Variant | A | None | 87 | 22.99% | +0.079R | +6.9R | 1.10 | 1.09 | +0.068R | 56.1% | 0.0% | 18.9% | Yes |
| 13 | Gold (XAU/USD) | Variant | A | None | 80 | 22.5% | +0.060R | +4.8R | 1.08 | 1.06 | +0.046R | 51.7% | 0.0% | 19.1% | Yes |
| 14 | Nasdaq 100 (US Tech 100) | Variant | B | None | 47 | 19.15% | +0.712R | +33.5R | 1.90 | 1.83 | +0.649R | 86.0% | 0.0% | 12.8% | Yes |
| 15 | Silver (XAG/USD) | Variant | A | None | 81 | 24.69% | +0.035R | +2.8R | 1.04 | 1.01 | +0.006R | 46.4% | 0.0% | 20.7% | Yes |
| 16 | Euro / US Dollar (EUR/USD) | Variant | B | None | 58 | 17.24% | +0.317R | +18.4R | 1.38 | 1.30 | +0.247R | 62.0% | 0.0% | 17.8% | Yes |
| 17 | Gold (XAU/USD) | Variant | B | None | 34 | 23.53% | +1.825R | +62.0R | 3.32 | 3.06 | +1.634R | 90.1% | 0.0% | 10.3% | Yes |
| 18 | Silver (XAG/USD) | Variant | B | None | 47 | 12.77% | +0.548R | +25.7R | 1.54 | 1.45 | +0.455R | 61.0% | 0.0% | 21.2% | Yes |
| 19 | Nasdaq 100 (US Tech 100) | Original | B | None | 823 | 24.3% | +0.007R | +5.7R | 1.01 | 1.00 | +0.003R | 37.3% | 43.4% | 57.8% | Yes |
| 20 | S&P 500 (US 500) | Original | A | None | 1197 | 31.83% | -0.042R | -50.0R | 0.93 | 0.93 | -0.043R | 12.8% | 68.5% | 68.0% | No |
| 21 | Bitcoin (BTC/USD) | Original | B | None | 1129 | 21.26% | -0.049R | -55.1R | 0.94 | 0.94 | -0.054R | 13.3% | 81.7% | 82.0% | No |
| 22 | Bitcoin (BTC/USD) | Original | A | None | 1693 | 29.65% | -0.070R | -118.7R | 0.90 | 0.89 | -0.073R | 4.3% | 93.5% | 88.6% | No |
| 23 | S&P 500 (US 500) | Original | B | None | 804 | 25.25% | -0.089R | -71.7R | 0.88 | 0.88 | -0.091R | 7.5% | 76.3% | 70.9% | No |
| 24 | S&P 500 (US 500) | Variant | B | None | 58 | 8.62% | -0.110R | -6.3R | 0.88 | 0.82 | -0.161R | 31.8% | 0.0% | 26.2% | No |
| 25 | Euro / US Dollar (EUR/USD) | Original | A | None | 1263 | 29.77% | -0.136R | -171.5R | 0.77 | 0.77 | -0.136R | 0.0% | 99.2% | 86.9% | No |
| 26 | Euro / US Dollar (EUR/USD) | Original | B | None | 857 | 23.92% | -0.192R | -164.2R | 0.75 | 0.75 | -0.193R | 0.1% | 98.7% | 86.1% | No |
| 27 | S&P 500 (US 500) | Variant | A | None | 92 | 16.3% | -0.248R | -22.8R | 0.70 | 0.68 | -0.261R | 10.9% | 0.7% | 30.3% | No |
| 28 | Silver (XAG/USD) | Original | B | None | 812 | 22.41% | -0.289R | -234.6R | 0.70 | 0.70 | -0.292R | 0.0% | 100.0% | 93.7% | No |
| 29 | Silver (XAG/USD) | Original | A | None | 1177 | 28.46% | -0.339R | -398.5R | 0.57 | 0.57 | -0.339R | 0.0% | 100.0% | 98.5% | No |