Strategies
LINK US-Session Opening-Range Breakout — Long-Short, Single-Instrument Intraday: Fade-Proof Break of the First 90-Minute Range After the US Cash Open, Measured-Move Target, Hard OR Stop, Flat by End of Day (BINANCE LINKUSDT USD-M, 30m Bars, Session-Anchored, 3-Parameter)
Outcome: Abandoned
LinkUsSessionOpeningRangeBreakoutLS
Outcome Summary
LinkUsSessionOpeningRangeBreakoutLS tried to escape the breakout graveyard by anchoring an opening-range breakout to a real liquidity event — the 13:30 UTC US cash open — with a measured-move target, a hard range stop, and no overnight carry to guarantee bounded drawdown. The implementation was clean and the sample large (1,207 trades over 6.4 years), and drawdown was indeed capped at 32.4%, but the strategy lost money overall (PF 0.906, -22.1%, Sharpe ~0.02) and was negative in every year except 2020. The analyst noted the risk controls bounded losses around a negative expectancy rather than creating edge, and that market impact at 202.8% of gross PnL made it viable only at toy scale. As another net-loser member of the 0/213 OHLCV breakout family, it was abandoned at backtest review without spending an optimization run.
Hypothesis
net_loser_no_edge_ohlcv_breakout_clone: LINK US-session ORB is a net loser over a well-measured 1207-trade / 6.4-year sample — profit_factor 0.906 (<1.0), total_return -22.1%, expectancy -$18.35/trade, Sharpe 0.023 with CI [-0.725, 0.565] straddling zero and information_ratio -0.57 (negative alpha). It is negative in every year except the 2020 early-cycle (+5.2%), so the mechanism has no persistent edge net of costs — this is decay, not a cliff or a tuning gap. It is the single-instrument pure-OHLCV directional-breakout family (0/213 survival, L9/L41/L63); the session-anchoring + hard-OR-stop bounded drawdown to 32.4% but bounded it around a NEGATIVE expectancy, so the structural risk fix does not create edge. Modeled market impact is 202.8% of gross PnL (capacity ~$24k), so it is real only at toy scale. With 3 tunables a 225-trial sweep would curve-fit the lone positive 2020 year and die at DSR/holdout, exactly as prior breakout clones did. No parameter change can turn a 6-year net loser positive — not worth the 2-hour optimization run.
Implementation
Verification Results
Analyst should probe whether higher target_r or a partial-range stop improves risk-adjusted return.
Structural reward:risk asymmetry — hard stop sits at the full opposite-OR side while the measured-move target is only target_r*width (0.5×width at defaults), giving a payoff ratio well below 1.0. Result: high win rate (0.717) but fat-tail losses (avg_loss 553 vs avg_win 237, kurtosis 20.6), negative sandbox Sharpe (-0.34, CI straddling zero), PF 1.08. avg_trade_return_pct 0.34% still clears the 0.15% fee floor, so this is an edge concern for the analyst, not a correctness defect.
Backtest-review analyst should confirm per-trade edge holds above the fee floor across full multi-year history.
Developer's own caveat notes an offline dry-run shows only marginal net-of-fee profitability (~+0.05%/trade, possibly under the 0.15% floor). Sandbox reads 0.34% on one 347-day slice with negative Sharpe — unresolved edge question, not a code fault.
Backtest Review
- Sharpe
- 0.02
- Total return
- -22.09%
- Max drawdown
- 32.42%
- Trades
- 1207
- Win rate
- 67.4%
- Profit factor
- 0.91
Large, well-measured sample (1207 trades / 6.4 years) — no significance trap
Drawdown genuinely bounded by construction (hard OR stop + flat-by-EOD): max_dd 32.4% avoids the L19 >50% breach
Clean session-anchored implementation; entries fired as designed (1207 signaled = 1207 submitted, no plumbing bug)
Net loser: profit_factor 0.906 (<1.0), total_return -22.1%, expectancy -$18.35/trade
No risk-adjusted edge: Sharpe 0.023 with CI [-0.725, 0.565] straddling zero; information_ratio -0.57 (negative alpha)
Negative in EVERY year except the 2020 early-cycle (+5.2%): 2021 -9.1, 2022 -6.8, 2023 -2.9, 2024 -7.8, 2025 -2.2, 2026 -0.2 — decay, not a persistent edge
Single-instrument pure-OHLCV directional breakout family (0/213 survival, L9/L41/L63) — the ORB gate adds no robustness the deflation can't strip
Market impact 202.8% of gross PnL, capacity ~$24k — deployable only at toy scale even if the sign flipped
Outcome Summary
Structural risk controls (a hard opposite-range stop and end-of-day flattening) successfully bound drawdown but cannot manufacture edge; anchoring an OHLCV breakout to the US cash open does not survive costs, and an edge present only in the 2020 early-cycle year is decay, not a persistent effect.
It was abandoned at the pre-optimization BACKTEST_REVIEW gate as a net-loser OHLCV breakout clone: the mechanism has no persistent edge net of costs (decay, not a tuning gap), the structural risk controls merely bounded drawdown around a negative expectancy, and it belongs to the single-instrument pure-OHLCV directional-breakout family (0/213 survival). A 225-trial sweep would only curve-fit the lone positive 2020 year and die at DSR/holdout, so it was judged not worth the optimization run. Optimization, full analysis, and risk review were never reached.
A long-short, single-instrument intraday opening-range breakout on LINKUSDT.BINANCE USD-M perp (30m bars) that defined the first 90-minute range after the 13:30 UTC US cash open and traded a decisive break of it with a measured-move target, a hard stop at the opposite range edge, and a force-flat-by-end-of-day rule to bound risk.
Over a large, well-measured sample (1,207 trades / 6.4 years) it was a net loser: profit factor 0.906, total return -22.1%, expectancy -$18.35/trade, Sharpe 0.023 with CI [-0.725, 0.565] straddling zero, and information ratio -0.57. The drawdown was genuinely bounded to 32.4% by construction, but it was negative in every year except the 2020 early-cycle (+5.2%), and modeled market impact was 202.8% of gross PnL with capacity ~$24k.
Backtest and paper results are hypothetical. Trading involves risk of loss.