Inconclusive · Filters · 2026-09-26
Do more volatile instruments do better on 15m?
What this means
Stocks that typically trade further from their 200-day average earned about +0.09R more per 15m setup than the calmest fifth. But the effect flipped sign in 2024 (−0.13R), used a single volatility measure and a single timeframe, and was not corrected for other tests run at the same time. The result should not be relied on.
The explanation is our best reading; the data shows the result but not the cause directly.
By timeframe
| Timeframe | Verdict | n | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15-minute | Inconclusive | 16,496 | Q5-Q1 +0.092R, reverses in 2024 |
| 1-hour | Not supported | 13,208 | volatile vs calm stocks +0.19 vs +0.15R, CI spans 0 |
| 4-hour | Not supported | 3,990 | +0.29 vs +0.18R, CI spans 0 |
| Daily | Not supported | 2,098 | +0.22 vs +0.26R, CI spans 0 |
- Hypothesis
- Instruments with larger typical distance from the 200 MA (a stable volatility proxy, split-half reliability 0.59) earn more per setup.
- Method
- 15m TradingView setups; quintiles of |dist MA200| per instrument.
- Result
- Q5 minus Q1 = +0.092R per setup (2.1 sigma, p = 0.0135), but it reverses in 2024 (-0.131).
- How much to trust it
- Low: one proxy, one timeframe, sign flip by year
- Did it change the live rule?
- No.
Scripts and data for this study will be linked here when the research code is published on GitHub.
Education and research only. Not financial advice. Backtests use today's index members (survivorship bias).