Inconclusive · Market regime · 2026-09-26
Does the strategy do better when the market is falling (SPY below its 200-day MA)?
What this means
On 15m, setups taken while SPY was below its 200-day average did much better (+0.34R, 52% win) than the rest (+0.06R, 42% win), and all three bear episodes were positive. But three episodes is a tiny sample: three out of three could happen by chance one time in eight. A plausible reason is that long-only dip-buying setups bounce harder after broad sell-offs, but the data cannot confirm this.
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 | 16,481 | below +0.340R vs above +0.056R; 3/3 episodes |
| 1-hour | Inconclusive | 13,208 | +0.27 vs +0.18R |
| 4-hour | Not supported | 3,990 | +0.21 vs +0.23R |
| Daily | Inconclusive | 2,098 | +0.39 vs +0.25R |
- Hypothesis
- Long-only harmonic reversals earn more when SPY is below its 200-day MA.
- Method
- 15m TradingView setups (16,496), split by SPY vs its 200-day MA; replicated across two sweeps; per-episode breakdown.
- Result
- Below: 1,410 setups, 51.7% win, +0.340R. Above: 15,071, 41.7%, +0.056R. All three bear episodes positive (Oct 2023 +0.78, spring 2025 +0.29, spring 2026 +0.31); lifts 6 of 7 patterns. Sign test on 3/3 episodes p = 0.125.
- How much to trust it
- Medium: large trade count but only 3 independent bear episodes; 15m history capped at 3.1 years
- 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).