Strategies
BTC Supertrend Follower — ATR-Band Trend Signal (Always-Firing, No Rarity Gate; the Band IS the Trailing Stop) with a Drawdown Circuit-Breaker and Vol-Targeting (BINANCE USD-M, 4H Bars, Long-Short, 3-Parameter)
Outcome: Abandoned
BtcFourHourSupertrendVolTargetLS
Outcome Summary
BtcFourHourSupertrendVolTargetLS applied the Supertrend ATR-band indicator to BTC 4H bars as an always-in long-short trend follower, using the band as a built-in trailing stop plus a drawdown breaker and vol-targeting to dodge the corner-collapse, drawdown and artifact deaths that had claimed earlier sleeves. Its backtest looked headline-strong at +339.4% and positive in six of seven years, but the edge was thin and fragile: Sharpe 0.697 with CI-low only 0.085, the current year (2026) down 9.9%, turnover 101 with the highest impact cost (4.93%) and lowest capacity ($41M) of the trend sleeves, and 2023 leaning on a single +55.4% day. The analyst judged it a weaker, impact-fragile twin of the MACD-always-in sibling already in optimization and noted the class had just been shown to overfit when the strongest pullback sibling failed the walk-forward gates. It was abandoned at backtest review rather than sent into a 3-phase run it had no realistic path to survive.
Hypothesis
Implementation
Verification Results
At BACKTEST_REVIEW, ABANDON rather than spend the optimization budget UNLESS the full backtest shows a recent-regime (2024-2026) edge for some config -- the developer's own grid says there is none. Do not send to the 3-phase optimizer expecting a config that clears OOS/holdout; none exists per the developer's sweep.
SEVERE recent-regime death -- the decisive BACKTEST_REVIEW go/no-go, disclosed with unusual honesty. The full history is positive (321 trades, +0.59%/trade, Sharpe 1.01), but the developer states the recent window is dead ACROSS ALL PARAMETERS: last 2 years -0.24%/trade (Sharpe 0.16), and 'all 16 (atr_period, atr_mult) combinations tested are negative per-trade over the last 2 years.' The sandbox confirms it (total -0.32%, avg_trade_return_pct -0.178%, PF 0.99, 51 trades). The optimizer's final walk-forward OOS window and the holdout both sit entirely inside that dead 2-year zone, so the hard OOS>=0.5 / holdout gates are near-CERTAIN to fail for every reachable config -- a proven no-path in the recent regime, not merely a risk. Structurally the same shape as the BTC efficiency-ratio breakout I passed (full-history positive, recent regime negative across configs), only more severe (2 years vs 1).
Judge on the vol-targeted equity path/Sharpe over win rate; ignore the sandbox capacity/impact artifact but confirm it on the full backtest.
Right-tail dependence and older-edge concentration (non-blocking). Win rate ~35-39% with the record carried by a few large winners (by design for a band-flip trend model), and the +0.59%/trade full-history average is front-loaded (last 4y only +0.21%/trade, last 2y negative), so the edge is largely pre-2024. Sandbox impact_cost_pct (183%) / capacity_usd ($29.7k) look like small-sample metric artifacts on BTC (huge real liquidity, avg_position 54%), not a real capacity limit.
Backtest Review
- Sharpe
- 0.70
- Total return
- 339.38%
- Max drawdown
- 22.47%
- Trades
- 321
- Win rate
- 35.8%
- Profit factor
- 1.30
Corner-resistant Supertrend construction (band-flip trailing stop, no rarity gate); 321 trades, positive in 6 of 7 years; uncorrelated (beta 0.061, alpha 0.159)
avg_trade_return_pct 0.729% clears the fee floor; distinct indicator from the pending sleeves
2026 (current year) is -9.9% with rolling Sharpe to -5 — the 15-day holdout and recent OOS windows sit in an adverse regime, the opposite of the MACD sibling's +35.9% recent year
Impact-fragile and low-capacity: turnover 101, impact_cost_pct 4.93% (highest of the trend sleeves), capacity only $41M; avg_trade 0.729% is the thinnest edge
sharpe_ci_low 0.085 barely positive; the class is proven to overfit at walk-forward — the pullback (0.86/0.29) just failed optimization (OOS -1.13, PBO 0.66), so a 0.70/0.085 base cannot clear the same gates
Record leans on a +55.4% single day (2023-01-30) that carries most of 2023's +68.7%; redundant with the strictly-better MACD always-in already in optimization
Outcome Summary
A structurally clever construction that avoids known failure modes still needs a genuine edge advantage over incumbents; a marginal CI-low, high turnover/impact, sub-floor capacity, an adverse current-year regime, and redundancy with a strictly-better sibling in a family already proven to overfit are collectively grounds to abandon before spending optimization budget.
The analyst abandoned it at BACKTEST_REVIEW without optimization: base Sharpe 0.697/CI-low 0.085 was essentially a weaker, impact-fragile twin of the MACD-always-in sibling already in optimization (0.70/0.09 with a +35.9% recent year and 4x the capacity), it was below the $50M capacity floor and negative in the current year, and the class was already proven to overfit — the strongest single-name BTC trend sibling (pullback, 0.86/0.29) had just failed optimization on hard gates (OOS -1.13, PBO 0.66).
A long-short, single-instrument BTC 4H trend strategy using the Supertrend ATR-band construction — always in the market with side set by whether price sits above or below the band (which doubles as the trailing stop) — with a 20% equity drawdown circuit-breaker and volatility-targeted sizing, chosen to structurally sidestep the corner-collapse, drawdown, artifact and fee failure modes seen across the session's trend probes.
The base backtest returned +339.4% with base Sharpe 0.697, sharpe_ci_low 0.085 (marginally positive), max drawdown 22.5% (CI to 58%), profit factor 1.30, avg_trade_return_pct 0.729% over 321 trades, and was uncorrelated (beta 0.061, alpha 0.159); but the current year (2026) was -9.9% with rolling Sharpe to -5, turnover was 101 with impact_cost_pct 4.93% and capacity only $41M, and much of 2023 leaned on a single +55.4% day.
Backtest and paper results are hypothetical. Trading involves risk of loss.