Not supported · Patterns · 2026-09-05 (initial commit); timeframe gap fill 2026-10-11

Are Bat (100%) and Deep Crab (91.7%) 'S-tier' patterns?

What this means

The 'S-tier: 100%' label for Bat and '91.7%' for Deep Crab have no saved source, and they came from a hindsight-prone Python sim. On TradingView fills, Bat earns +0.25R on 1h but about 0R on 15m, and no pattern difference is statistically significant. The labels should not be cited; they are still in the indicator's input names.

The explanation is our best reading; the data shows the result but not the cause directly.

By timeframe

Timeframe	Verdict	n	Result
15-minute	Not supported	664	Bat +0.00R (n=664)
1-hour	Not supported	843	Bat +0.25R, Deep Crab +0.22R; no pattern significant
4-hour	Not supported	235	Bat +0.13 vs rest (q=0.42), Deep Crab +0.26 (q=0.14): no significant difference gap fill G8, 2026-10-11 (trade logs)
Daily	Not supported	116	Bat +0.01 (q=0.98), Deep Crab +0.23 (q=0.43) vs rest gap fill G8, 2026-10-11 (trade logs)

Hypothesis: Bat and Deep Crab win far more often than other patterns (labels 'S-Tier: 100% / 91.7%', Shark 'A-Tier: 63.1%').
Method: Python deep dive on 50+ large caps, daily/weekly, 15 years (analytics/pattern_type_deep_dive.py).
Result: No saved output behind the labels. TradingView sweeps: Bat mean R +0.25 (1h, n=491), +0.00 (15m, n=664); Deep Crab +0.22 (1h, n=352); no pattern difference is significant. Gap fill: 4h Bat +0.13R vs other patterns (q = 0.42), Deep Crab +0.26R (q = 0.14); daily Bat +0.01R (q = 0.98), Deep Crab +0.23R (q = 0.43).
How much to trust it: Low: labels have no saved source; Python zigzag family with look-ahead
Did it change the live rule?: the labels are still in the Pine input names; all patterns enabled
Notes: Do not cite the labels.

Scripts and data for this study will be linked here when the research code is published on GitHub.

← All experiments

Education and research only. Not financial advice. Backtests use today's index members (survivorship bias).