Silver

metal · dukascopy · prices in USD/oz · horizons 4h / 1d / 3d / 5d · session analysis in America/New_York

Download the underlying JSON

Barrier hits — where the stop and the target can go

From a random entry at a bar's close, how often the target arrived before the stop, within the horizon — going long, and going short. The number to read is the gap between the two. Its null is exactly zero under sign symmetry — if a path and its mirror image are equally likely once drift is removed — and that holds at any horizon. A hit rate on its own is mostly arithmetic. Note what the null does not say: a skewed series with no drift can break it without either direction being profitable. See methodology.

Entries are every bar, unconditionally. There is no entry rule and no signal: this is the unconditional first-passage structure of the price path, not a backtest. Consecutive entries overlap heavily, so every cell reports an effective sample size alongside its row count — see methodology.

Full available sample

118,574 bars · 2021-07-27T19:00:00+00:00 to 2026-08-02T23:45:00+00:00

Over this window the price drifted +18.7% a year. Each cell below shows how much of its long/short gap that drift accounts for; only the remainder is tested.

4h horizon

7,751 non-overlapping entries · 10,993 coverage-span equivalents · median 16 bars per window

At this horizon: 0.25% ≈ 0.25σ · 0.5% ≈ 0.51σ · 1% ≈ 1.01σ · 2% ≈ 2.01σ · 3% ≈ 3.01σ — the same percentage barrier is a far bigger move at 4h than at 5d, which is most of why resolution rates differ across horizons.

2026-08-03T11:19:33.807421 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.11.1, https://matplotlib.org/

Shares of all long entries, not of the ones that resolved: the three add to 100%. “Neither” is the entry still open when the horizon expired — its share is the column below, and across this site it runs from near zero to nearly every entry depending on the horizon and how wide the rungs are. What happened inside those windows is measured in the next section, from intrabar highs and lows.

target / stoplong target firstlong stop first long neitherexcess (long − short)95% CI long effective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 44.4% 49.7% 5.9% -3.6 pp -5.0 to -2.4 pp 17600
+0.25% / −0.5% 57.2% 28.1% 14.8% -3.8 pp -5.4 to -2.5 pp 12541
+0.25% / −1% 63.1% 11.0% 25.9% -3.2 pp -4.3 to -2.1 pp 6724
+0.25% / −2% 64.8% 2.5% 32.7% -1.1 pp -1.6 to -0.6 pp 4360
+0.25% / −3% 65.0% 0.8% 34.2% -0.5 pp -0.7 to -0.2 pp 4505
+0.5% / −0.25% 24.7% 60.6% 14.7% -3.7 pp -5.2 to -2.4 pp 12197
+0.5% / −0.5% 33.1% 36.7% 30.2% -5.7 pp -7.7 to -3.9 pp 9484
+0.5% / −1% 37.9% 15.0% 47.1% -6.0 pp -8.0 to -4.1 pp 4800
+0.5% / −2% 39.5% 3.6% 57.0% -2.5 pp -3.6 to -1.5 pp 2303
+0.5% / −3% 39.7% 1.2% 59.1% -1.2 pp -1.8 to -0.7 pp 2097
+1% / −0.25% 8.8% 65.5% 25.7% -3.1 pp -4.1 to -2.0 pp 8547
+1% / −0.5% 12.3% 41.0% 46.7% -6.0 pp -8.0 to -4.0 pp 5637
+1% / −1% 14.7% 17.4% 67.9% -9.4 pp -12.6 to -6.4 pp 3880
+1% / −2% 15.7% 4.3% 80.0% -6.5 pp -9.4 to -3.7 pp 1206
+1% / −3% 15.8% 1.5% 82.6% -4.1 pp -5.9 to -2.3 pp 806
+2% / −0.25% 1.9% 66.5% 31.7% -1.1 pp -1.6 to -0.6 pp 6307
+2% / −0.5% 2.7% 42.1% 55.2% -2.5 pp -3.6 to -1.5 pp 3032
+2% / −1% 3.4% 18.1% 78.5% -6.5 pp -9.3 to -3.6 pp 1634
+2% / −2% 3.7% 4.7% 91.6% -11.8 pp -18.3 to -5.2 pp 885
+2% / −3% 3.8% 1.7% 94.4% -12.9 pp -19.0 to -6.8 pp 446
+3% / −0.25% 0.5% 66.6% 32.9% -0.5 pp -0.7 to -0.2 pp 7349
+3% / −0.5% 0.8% 42.2% 57.0% -1.2 pp -1.8 to -0.6 pp 3270
+3% / −1% 1.0% 18.3% 80.8% -4.0 pp -5.8 to -2.3 pp 1366
+3% / −2% 1.1% 4.7% 94.2% -12.9 pp -19.0 to -6.7 pp 534
+3% / −3% 1.1% 1.8% 97.1% -22.6 pp -33.6 to -13.2 pp 368
Full detail — conditional rates, both directions, drift reconciliation
target / stop long target firstshort target first short stop firstshort neither long, of resolvedshort, of resolved long resolvedshort resolved raw gapchange after detrendingdetrended gap stabilitylong tiesshort tiesn
+0.25% / −0.25% 44.4% 46.7% 47.4% 5.9% 47.2% 49.7% 94% 94% -2.4 pp -1.2 pp -3.6 pp halves agree 2.95% 2.95% 117,662
+0.25% / −0.5% 57.2% 59.5% 25.9% 14.7% 67.1% 69.7% 85% 85% -2.6 pp -1.2 pp -3.8 pp halves agree 1.22% 1.15% 117,662
+0.25% / −1% 63.1% 65.2% 9.1% 25.7% 85.2% 87.7% 74% 74% -2.5 pp -0.6 pp -3.2 pp halves agree 0.38% 0.30% 117,662
+0.25% / −2% 64.8% 66.4% 1.9% 31.7% 96.2% 97.2% 67% 68% -1.0 pp -0.2 pp -1.1 pp halves agree 0.05% 0.03% 117,662
+0.25% / −3% 65.0% 66.6% 0.6% 32.9% 98.8% 99.2% 66% 67% -0.4 pp -0.1 pp -0.5 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.01% 117,662
+0.5% / −0.25% 24.7% 26.9% 58.4% 14.8% 29.0% 31.5% 85% 85% -2.5 pp -1.2 pp -3.7 pp halves agree 1.15% 1.22% 117,662
+0.5% / −0.5% 33.1% 36.0% 33.8% 30.2% 47.4% 51.6% 70% 70% -4.2 pp -1.4 pp -5.7 pp halves agree 0.68% 0.68% 117,662
+0.5% / −1% 37.9% 40.8% 12.5% 46.7% 71.7% 76.6% 53% 53% -4.9 pp -1.1 pp -6.0 pp halves agree 0.22% 0.22% 117,662
+0.5% / −2% 39.5% 42.1% 2.7% 55.2% 91.7% 93.9% 43% 45% -2.2 pp -0.3 pp -2.5 pp halves agree 0.05% 0.03% 117,662
+0.5% / −3% 39.7% 42.2% 0.8% 57.0% 97.0% 98.2% 41% 43% -1.1 pp -0.1 pp -1.2 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.01% 117,662
+1% / −0.25% 8.8% 10.6% 63.5% 25.9% 11.9% 14.3% 74% 74% -2.4 pp -0.6 pp -3.1 pp halves agree 0.30% 0.38% 117,662
+1% / −0.5% 12.3% 14.8% 38.1% 47.1% 23.0% 27.9% 53% 53% -4.9 pp -1.0 pp -6.0 pp halves agree 0.22% 0.22% 117,662
+1% / −1% 14.7% 17.3% 14.8% 67.9% 45.8% 53.9% 32% 32% -8.1 pp -1.3 pp -9.4 pp halves agree 0.09% 0.09% 117,662
+1% / −2% 15.7% 18.1% 3.4% 78.5% 78.4% 84.2% 20% 22% -5.8 pp -0.7 pp -6.5 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.01% 117,662
+1% / −3% 15.8% 18.2% 1.0% 80.8% 91.1% 94.9% 17% 19% -3.8 pp -0.3 pp -4.1 pp halves agree 0.01% 0.00% 117,662
+2% / −0.25% 1.9% 2.5% 64.9% 32.7% 2.7% 3.7% 68% 67% -0.9 pp -0.2 pp -1.1 pp halves agree 0.03% 0.05% 117,662
+2% / −0.5% 2.7% 3.5% 39.5% 57.0% 6.0% 8.2% 45% 43% -2.1 pp -0.3 pp -2.5 pp halves agree 0.03% 0.05% 117,662
+2% / −1% 3.4% 4.3% 15.7% 80.0% 15.8% 21.5% 22% 20% -5.7 pp -0.7 pp -6.5 pp halves agree 0.01% 0.02% 117,662
+2% / −2% 3.7% 4.7% 3.7% 91.6% 44.6% 55.4% 8% 8% -10.8 pp -1.0 pp -11.8 pp halves agree 0.00% 0.00% 117,662
+2% / −3% 3.8% 4.7% 1.1% 94.2% 68.7% 80.9% 6% 6% -12.2 pp -0.7 pp -12.9 pp halves agree 0.00% 0.00% 117,662
+3% / −0.25% 0.5% 0.8% 65.0% 34.2% 0.8% 1.2% 67% 66% -0.4 pp -0.1 pp -0.5 pp halves agree 0.01% 0.02% 117,662
+3% / −0.5% 0.8% 1.2% 39.7% 59.1% 1.8% 2.9% 43% 41% -1.1 pp -0.1 pp -1.2 pp halves agree 0.01% 0.02% 117,662
+3% / −1% 1.0% 1.5% 15.8% 82.6% 5.1% 8.9% 19% 17% -3.7 pp -0.3 pp -4.0 pp halves agree 0.00% 0.01% 117,662
+3% / −2% 1.1% 1.7% 3.8% 94.4% 19.1% 31.3% 6% 6% -12.2 pp -0.7 pp -12.9 pp halves agree 0.00% 0.00% 117,662
+3% / −3% 1.1% 1.8% 1.1% 97.1% 39.1% 60.9% 3% 3% -21.7 pp -0.9 pp -22.6 pp halves agree 0.00% 0.00% 117,662

The three gap columns add: raw + change after detrending = detrended gap. Only the detrended gap is tested and only it carries the interval in the table above. “Of resolved” is the target-first rate among entries that reached either barrier — on cells where little resolves it can read near 100% while the unconditional rate is modest.

25 of 25 Benjamini–Hochberg survivors in the 4h horizon also agree across both halves of history.

Sampling check: re-running this horizon on 7,751 strictly non-overlapping entries (rather than 117,662 every-bar entries) moves the asymmetry by a median of 0.8 pp and at most 4.2 pp.

1d horizon

1,296 non-overlapping entries · 1,832 coverage-span equivalents · median 92 bars per window

At this horizon: 0.25% ≈ 0.11σ · 0.5% ≈ 0.21σ · 1% ≈ 0.42σ · 2% ≈ 0.84σ · 3% ≈ 1.25σ — the same percentage barrier is a far bigger move at 4h than at 5d, which is most of why resolution rates differ across horizons.

2026-08-03T11:19:33.902758 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.11.1, https://matplotlib.org/

Shares of all long entries, not of the ones that resolved: the three add to 100%. “Neither” is the entry still open when the horizon expired — its share is the column below, and across this site it runs from near zero to nearly every entry depending on the horizon and how wide the rungs are. What happened inside those windows is measured in the next section, from intrabar highs and lows.

target / stoplong target firstlong stop first long neitherexcess (long − short)95% CI long effective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 46.6% 51.9% 1.4% -3.7 pp -5.1 to -2.4 pp 16823
+0.25% / −0.5% 63.8% 33.9% 2.2% -3.9 pp -5.5 to -2.5 pp 11252
+0.25% / −1% 76.9% 19.7% 3.4% -3.7 pp -5.3 to -2.1 pp 6923
+0.25% / −2% 83.9% 8.5% 7.6% -1.6 pp -2.9 to -0.3 pp 4409
+0.25% / −3% 85.0% 3.9% 11.1% -0.8 pp -1.7 to +0.1 pp 4276
+0.5% / −0.25% 30.4% 67.5% 2.1% -3.8 pp -5.4 to -2.4 pp 11861
+0.5% / −0.5% 45.9% 50.6% 3.4% -5.8 pp -8.3 to -3.7 pp 7077
+0.5% / −1% 61.5% 32.2% 6.3% -5.8 pp -8.4 to -3.3 pp 4181
+0.5% / −2% 70.5% 14.0% 15.5% -2.8 pp -5.1 to -0.5 pp 2534
+0.5% / −3% 72.0% 6.4% 21.6% -1.7 pp -3.4 to +0.0 pp 2170
+1% / −0.25% 17.0% 80.0% 3.0% -3.6 pp -5.2 to -1.9 pp 7616
+1% / −0.5% 28.4% 65.8% 5.8% -5.8 pp -8.4 to -3.2 pp 4426
+1% / −1% 41.2% 44.8% 14.0% -6.6 pp -10.6 to -2.7 pp 2544
+1% / −2% 48.9% 19.9% 31.2% -4.2 pp -8.0 to -0.1 pp 1562
+1% / −3% 50.3% 9.0% 40.7% -3.0 pp -6.0 to +0.1 pp 1192
+2% / −0.25% 7.8% 85.7% 6.6% -1.6 pp -2.9 to -0.4 pp 5475
+2% / −0.5% 13.0% 73.2% 13.8% -2.8 pp -5.1 to -0.5 pp 3073
+2% / −1% 18.9% 51.2% 29.8% -4.2 pp -8.0 to -0.1 pp 1783
+2% / −2% 22.8% 23.2% 54.0% -4.2 pp -10.5 to +2.4 pp 915
+2% / −3% 23.6% 10.8% 65.6% -4.5 pp -10.6 to +2.3 pp 604
+3% / −0.25% 3.6% 86.5% 9.9% -0.8 pp -1.7 to +0.1 pp 4935
+3% / −0.5% 5.9% 74.2% 19.8% -1.6 pp -3.3 to +0.0 pp 2778
+3% / −1% 8.4% 52.4% 39.2% -3.0 pp -6.0 to +0.1 pp 1516
+3% / −2% 10.2% 24.2% 65.6% -4.5 pp -10.6 to +2.3 pp 710
+3% / −3% 10.8% 11.4% 77.8% -6.6 pp -15.3 to +2.9 pp 431
Full detail — conditional rates, both directions, drift reconciliation
target / stop long target firstshort target first short stop firstshort neither long, of resolvedshort, of resolved long resolvedshort resolved raw gapchange after detrendingdetrended gap stabilitylong tiesshort tiesn
+0.25% / −0.25% 46.6% 49.0% 49.6% 1.4% 47.3% 49.7% 99% 99% -2.4 pp -1.3 pp -3.7 pp halves agree 2.97% 2.97% 117,662
+0.25% / −0.5% 63.8% 66.3% 31.6% 2.1% 65.3% 67.7% 98% 98% -2.4 pp -1.5 pp -3.9 pp halves agree 1.27% 1.20% 117,662
+0.25% / −1% 76.9% 79.5% 17.5% 3.0% 79.6% 82.0% 97% 97% -2.3 pp -1.3 pp -3.7 pp halves agree 0.49% 0.45% 117,662
+0.25% / −2% 83.9% 85.6% 7.8% 6.6% 90.8% 91.6% 92% 93% -0.8 pp -0.8 pp -1.6 pp halves agree 0.06% 0.06% 117,662
+0.25% / −3% 85.0% 86.5% 3.6% 9.9% 95.7% 96.0% 89% 90% -0.3 pp -0.5 pp -0.8 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.01% 117,662
+0.5% / −0.25% 30.4% 32.7% 65.1% 2.2% 31.0% 33.4% 98% 98% -2.4 pp -1.5 pp -3.8 pp halves agree 1.20% 1.27% 117,662
+0.5% / −0.5% 45.9% 49.8% 46.8% 3.4% 47.6% 51.5% 97% 97% -4.0 pp -1.9 pp -5.8 pp halves agree 0.86% 0.86% 117,662
+0.5% / −1% 61.5% 65.4% 28.8% 5.8% 65.7% 69.4% 94% 94% -3.8 pp -2.1 pp -5.8 pp halves agree 0.37% 0.36% 117,662
+0.5% / −2% 70.5% 73.1% 13.1% 13.8% 83.4% 84.8% 85% 86% -1.4 pp -1.5 pp -2.8 pp halves agree 0.07% 0.07% 117,662
+0.5% / −3% 72.0% 74.2% 5.9% 19.8% 91.9% 92.6% 78% 80% -0.7 pp -0.9 pp -1.7 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.01% 117,662
+1% / −0.25% 17.0% 19.2% 77.4% 3.4% 17.6% 19.9% 97% 97% -2.3 pp -1.3 pp -3.6 pp halves agree 0.45% 0.49% 117,662
+1% / −0.5% 28.4% 31.8% 61.9% 6.3% 30.2% 33.9% 94% 94% -3.8 pp -2.1 pp -5.8 pp halves agree 0.36% 0.37% 117,662
+1% / −1% 41.2% 44.6% 41.4% 14.0% 47.9% 51.9% 86% 86% -4.0 pp -2.6 pp -6.6 pp halves agree 0.20% 0.20% 117,662
+1% / −2% 48.9% 51.2% 19.0% 29.8% 71.1% 73.0% 69% 70% -1.8 pp -2.4 pp -4.2 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.02% 117,662
+1% / −3% 50.3% 52.4% 8.4% 39.2% 84.8% 86.2% 59% 61% -1.4 pp -1.6 pp -3.0 pp halves agree 0.01% 0.00% 117,662
+2% / −0.25% 7.8% 8.4% 84.0% 7.6% 8.3% 9.1% 93% 92% -0.8 pp -0.8 pp -1.6 pp halves agree 0.06% 0.06% 117,662
+2% / −0.5% 13.0% 13.9% 70.6% 15.5% 15.1% 16.5% 86% 85% -1.4 pp -1.5 pp -2.8 pp halves agree 0.07% 0.07% 117,662
+2% / −1% 18.9% 19.8% 49.0% 31.2% 27.0% 28.8% 70% 69% -1.8 pp -2.4 pp -4.2 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.02% 117,662
+2% / −2% 22.8% 23.2% 22.8% 54.0% 49.5% 50.5% 46% 46% -1.0 pp -3.2 pp -4.2 pp halves agree 0.00% 0.00% 117,662
+2% / −3% 23.6% 24.2% 10.2% 65.6% 68.6% 70.3% 34% 34% -1.7 pp -2.9 pp -4.5 pp halves agree 0.00% 0.00% 117,662
+3% / −0.25% 3.6% 3.8% 85.1% 11.1% 4.0% 4.3% 90% 89% -0.3 pp -0.5 pp -0.8 pp halves agree 0.01% 0.02% 117,662
+3% / −0.5% 5.9% 6.4% 72.0% 21.6% 7.4% 8.1% 80% 78% -0.7 pp -0.9 pp -1.6 pp halves agree 0.01% 0.02% 117,662
+3% / −1% 8.4% 9.0% 50.3% 40.7% 13.8% 15.2% 61% 59% -1.4 pp -1.6 pp -3.0 pp halves agree 0.00% 0.01% 117,662
+3% / −2% 10.2% 10.8% 23.6% 65.6% 29.7% 31.4% 34% 34% -1.7 pp -2.9 pp -4.5 pp halves agree 0.00% 0.00% 117,662
+3% / −3% 10.8% 11.4% 10.8% 77.8% 48.5% 51.5% 22% 22% -3.0 pp -3.5 pp -6.6 pp halves agree 0.00% 0.00% 117,662

The three gap columns add: raw + change after detrending = detrended gap. Only the detrended gap is tested and only it carries the interval in the table above. “Of resolved” is the target-first rate among entries that reached either barrier — on cells where little resolves it can read near 100% while the unconditional rate is modest.

13 of 13 Benjamini–Hochberg survivors in the 1d horizon also agree across both halves of history.

Sampling check: re-running this horizon on 1,296 strictly non-overlapping entries (rather than 117,662 every-bar entries) moves the asymmetry by a median of 0.8 pp and at most 5.6 pp.

3d horizon

525 non-overlapping entries · 610 coverage-span equivalents · median 224 bars per window

At this horizon: 0.25% ≈ 0.07σ · 0.5% ≈ 0.14σ · 1% ≈ 0.27σ · 2% ≈ 0.54σ · 3% ≈ 0.80σ — the same percentage barrier is a far bigger move at 4h than at 5d, which is most of why resolution rates differ across horizons.

2026-08-03T11:19:33.998943 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.11.1, https://matplotlib.org/

Shares of all long entries, not of the ones that resolved: the three add to 100%. “Neither” is the entry still open when the horizon expired — its share is the column below, and across this site it runs from near zero to nearly every entry depending on the horizon and how wide the rungs are. What happened inside those windows is measured in the next section, from intrabar highs and lows.

target / stoplong target firstlong stop first long neitherexcess (long − short)95% CI long effective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 47.3% 52.6% 0.1% -3.5 pp -5.0 to -2.3 pp 16738
+0.25% / −0.5% 65.2% 34.8% 0.1% -3.8 pp -5.5 to -2.4 pp 11191
+0.25% / −1% 79.1% 20.7% 0.2% -3.6 pp -5.3 to -2.1 pp 6941
+0.25% / −2% 88.1% 10.7% 1.2% -2.0 pp -3.5 to -0.6 pp 4240
+0.25% / −3% 90.6% 6.5% 3.0% -1.3 pp -2.5 to -0.0 pp 3787
+0.5% / −0.25% 31.2% 68.7% 0.1% -3.7 pp -5.4 to -2.3 pp 12109
+0.5% / −0.5% 47.6% 52.3% 0.2% -5.7 pp -8.2 to -3.6 pp 7252
+0.5% / −1% 64.7% 34.6% 0.6% -6.0 pp -8.8 to -3.5 pp 4044
+0.5% / −2% 77.9% 18.9% 3.2% -3.5 pp -6.1 to -0.9 pp 2310
+0.5% / −3% 81.5% 11.4% 7.1% -2.3 pp -4.8 to -0.0 pp 1965
+1% / −0.25% 18.0% 81.8% 0.2% -3.6 pp -5.3 to -2.0 pp 7973
+1% / −0.5% 30.5% 68.9% 0.6% -5.9 pp -8.7 to -3.5 pp 4524
+1% / −1% 46.7% 51.0% 2.3% -6.9 pp -11.0 to -3.0 pp 2386
+1% / −2% 61.6% 29.4% 9.0% -4.0 pp -8.5 to +0.4 pp 1359
+1% / −3% 66.2% 17.6% 16.2% -2.6 pp -6.8 to +1.6 pp 1127
+2% / −0.25% 9.8% 89.2% 1.0% -2.0 pp -3.5 to -0.6 pp 5473
+2% / −0.5% 17.5% 79.8% 2.6% -3.4 pp -6.1 to -0.8 pp 2777
+2% / −1% 28.8% 63.1% 8.0% -4.0 pp -8.5 to +0.4 pp 1467
+2% / −2% 39.5% 38.2% 22.3% -2.3 pp -9.2 to +4.5 pp 787
+2% / −3% 43.1% 23.1% 33.7% -1.9 pp -9.2 to +5.3 pp 593
+3% / −0.25% 6.2% 91.0% 2.8% -1.3 pp -2.5 to -0.0 pp 4615
+3% / −0.5% 10.9% 82.7% 6.4% -2.3 pp -4.8 to -0.0 pp 2522
+3% / −1% 17.8% 66.8% 15.4% -2.6 pp -6.8 to +1.6 pp 1287
+3% / −2% 24.5% 41.0% 34.5% -1.9 pp -9.2 to +5.3 pp 633
+3% / −3% 26.6% 25.1% 48.4% -2.4 pp -12.1 to +6.9 pp 436
Full detail — conditional rates, both directions, drift reconciliation
target / stop long target firstshort target first short stop firstshort neither long, of resolvedshort, of resolved long resolvedshort resolved raw gapchange after detrendingdetrended gap stabilitylong tiesshort tiesn
+0.25% / −0.25% 47.3% 49.6% 50.4% 0.1% 47.4% 49.6% 100% 100% -2.2 pp -1.3 pp -3.5 pp halves agree 3.03% 3.03% 117,662
+0.25% / −0.5% 65.2% 67.4% 32.5% 0.1% 65.2% 67.5% 100% 100% -2.3 pp -1.5 pp -3.8 pp halves agree 1.32% 1.25% 117,662
+0.25% / −1% 79.1% 81.3% 18.4% 0.2% 79.3% 81.5% 100% 100% -2.3 pp -1.4 pp -3.6 pp halves agree 0.50% 0.47% 117,662
+0.25% / −2% 88.1% 89.1% 9.8% 1.0% 89.2% 90.1% 99% 99% -0.9 pp -1.1 pp -2.0 pp halves agree 0.07% 0.07% 117,662
+0.25% / −3% 90.6% 91.0% 6.2% 2.8% 93.3% 93.7% 97% 97% -0.3 pp -1.0 pp -1.3 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.01% 117,662
+0.5% / −0.25% 31.2% 33.4% 66.5% 0.1% 31.3% 33.5% 100% 100% -2.2 pp -1.5 pp -3.7 pp halves agree 1.25% 1.32% 117,662
+0.5% / −0.5% 47.6% 51.4% 48.4% 0.2% 47.6% 51.5% 100% 100% -3.8 pp -1.9 pp -5.7 pp halves agree 0.88% 0.88% 117,662
+0.5% / −1% 64.7% 68.5% 30.9% 0.6% 65.1% 68.9% 99% 99% -3.8 pp -2.2 pp -6.0 pp halves agree 0.38% 0.39% 117,662
+0.5% / −2% 77.9% 79.8% 17.6% 2.6% 80.4% 81.9% 97% 97% -1.5 pp -2.0 pp -3.5 pp halves agree 0.10% 0.08% 117,662
+0.5% / −3% 81.5% 82.7% 10.9% 6.4% 87.7% 88.4% 93% 94% -0.6 pp -1.7 pp -2.3 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.01% 117,662
+1% / −0.25% 18.0% 20.2% 79.6% 0.2% 18.0% 20.2% 100% 100% -2.2 pp -1.3 pp -3.6 pp halves agree 0.47% 0.50% 117,662
+1% / −0.5% 30.5% 34.3% 65.1% 0.6% 30.7% 34.5% 99% 99% -3.8 pp -2.1 pp -5.9 pp halves agree 0.39% 0.38% 117,662
+1% / −1% 46.7% 50.8% 46.9% 2.3% 47.8% 52.0% 98% 98% -4.2 pp -2.7 pp -6.9 pp halves agree 0.22% 0.22% 117,662
+1% / −2% 61.6% 63.1% 28.8% 8.0% 67.7% 68.6% 91% 92% -1.0 pp -3.1 pp -4.0 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.02% 117,662
+1% / −3% 66.2% 66.8% 17.8% 15.4% 79.0% 78.9% 84% 85% +0.1 pp -2.7 pp -2.6 pp HALVES DISAGREE 0.01% 0.00% 117,662
+2% / −0.25% 9.8% 10.6% 88.2% 1.2% 9.9% 10.8% 99% 99% -0.9 pp -1.1 pp -2.0 pp halves agree 0.07% 0.07% 117,662
+2% / −0.5% 17.5% 18.8% 78.0% 3.2% 18.0% 19.5% 97% 97% -1.5 pp -2.0 pp -3.4 pp halves agree 0.08% 0.10% 117,662
+2% / −1% 28.8% 29.4% 61.6% 9.0% 31.3% 32.3% 92% 91% -1.0 pp -3.1 pp -4.0 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.02% 117,662
+2% / −2% 39.5% 38.1% 39.5% 22.3% 50.9% 49.1% 78% 78% +1.8 pp -4.1 pp -2.3 pp HALVES DISAGREE 0.00% 0.00% 117,662
+2% / −3% 43.1% 41.0% 24.5% 34.5% 65.1% 62.6% 66% 66% +2.5 pp -4.4 pp -1.9 pp HALVES DISAGREE 0.00% 0.00% 117,662
+3% / −0.25% 6.2% 6.4% 90.6% 3.0% 6.3% 6.6% 97% 97% -0.3 pp -1.0 pp -1.3 pp halves agree 0.01% 0.02% 117,662
+3% / −0.5% 10.9% 11.4% 81.6% 7.1% 11.6% 12.2% 94% 93% -0.6 pp -1.7 pp -2.3 pp halves agree 0.01% 0.02% 117,662
+3% / −1% 17.8% 17.6% 66.2% 16.2% 21.1% 21.0% 85% 84% +0.1 pp -2.7 pp -2.6 pp HALVES DISAGREE 0.00% 0.01% 117,662
+3% / −2% 24.5% 23.1% 43.1% 33.7% 37.4% 34.9% 66% 66% +2.5 pp -4.4 pp -1.9 pp HALVES DISAGREE 0.00% 0.00% 117,662
+3% / −3% 26.6% 25.1% 26.6% 48.4% 51.5% 48.5% 52% 52% +2.9 pp -5.3 pp -2.4 pp HALVES DISAGREE 0.00% 0.00% 117,662

The three gap columns add: raw + change after detrending = detrended gap. Only the detrended gap is tested and only it carries the interval in the table above. “Of resolved” is the target-first rate among entries that reached either barrier — on cells where little resolves it can read near 100% while the unconditional rate is modest.

13 of 13 Benjamini–Hochberg survivors in the 3d horizon also agree across both halves of history.

Sampling check: re-running this horizon on 525 strictly non-overlapping entries (rather than 117,662 every-bar entries) moves the asymmetry by a median of 2.0 pp and at most 6.8 pp.

5d horizon

263 non-overlapping entries · 366 coverage-span equivalents · median 276 bars per window

At this horizon: 0.25% ≈ 0.06σ · 0.5% ≈ 0.12σ · 1% ≈ 0.24σ · 2% ≈ 0.49σ · 3% ≈ 0.72σ — the same percentage barrier is a far bigger move at 4h than at 5d, which is most of why resolution rates differ across horizons.

2026-08-03T11:19:34.172401 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.11.1, https://matplotlib.org/

Shares of all long entries, not of the ones that resolved: the three add to 100%. “Neither” is the entry still open when the horizon expired — its share is the column below, and across this site it runs from near zero to nearly every entry depending on the horizon and how wide the rungs are. What happened inside those windows is measured in the next section, from intrabar highs and lows.

target / stoplong target firstlong stop first long neitherexcess (long − short)95% CI long effective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 47.4% 52.6% 0.0% -3.5 pp -4.9 to -2.2 pp 16707
+0.25% / −0.5% 65.2% 34.8% 0.0% -3.8 pp -5.5 to -2.3 pp 11243
+0.25% / −1% 79.2% 20.8% 0.0% -3.6 pp -5.2 to -2.0 pp 6935
+0.25% / −2% 88.8% 11.2% 0.1% -2.1 pp -3.7 to -0.7 pp 4202
+0.25% / −3% 92.0% 7.3% 0.7% -1.4 pp -2.7 to -0.1 pp 3733
+0.5% / −0.25% 31.3% 68.7% 0.0% -3.7 pp -5.4 to -2.2 pp 12068
+0.5% / −0.5% 47.6% 52.3% 0.0% -5.7 pp -8.2 to -3.6 pp 7267
+0.5% / −1% 65.1% 34.9% 0.0% -5.8 pp -8.6 to -3.4 pp 3986
+0.5% / −2% 79.5% 20.2% 0.3% -3.7 pp -6.5 to -1.0 pp 2260
+0.5% / −3% 84.6% 13.3% 2.1% -2.5 pp -5.1 to -0.1 pp 1883
+1% / −0.25% 18.1% 81.9% 0.0% -3.5 pp -5.2 to -2.0 pp 7824
+1% / −0.5% 30.8% 69.2% 0.0% -5.8 pp -8.6 to -3.4 pp 4476
+1% / −1% 47.9% 52.1% 0.1% -6.7 pp -10.7 to -2.8 pp 2341
+1% / −2% 65.5% 32.8% 1.8% -4.2 pp -9.0 to +0.3 pp 1284
+1% / −3% 72.0% 21.6% 6.4% -2.8 pp -7.6 to +1.5 pp 1068
+2% / −0.25% 10.2% 89.7% 0.0% -2.1 pp -3.6 to -0.6 pp 5214
+2% / −0.5% 18.6% 81.2% 0.2% -3.7 pp -6.4 to -0.9 pp 2672
+2% / −1% 31.9% 66.8% 1.4% -4.2 pp -9.0 to +0.3 pp 1416
+2% / −2% 46.7% 44.8% 8.5% -2.3 pp -9.6 to +4.0 pp 777
+2% / −3% 52.2% 29.6% 18.2% -1.5 pp -9.4 to +5.3 pp 605
+3% / −0.25% 7.1% 92.2% 0.7% -1.3 pp -2.7 to -0.1 pp 4461
+3% / −0.5% 13.0% 85.1% 1.9% -2.4 pp -5.1 to -0.1 pp 2366
+3% / −1% 22.1% 72.0% 5.9% -2.8 pp -7.6 to +1.5 pp 1220
+3% / −2% 32.3% 49.4% 18.3% -1.5 pp -9.4 to +5.3 pp 647
+3% / −3% 36.0% 32.8% 31.2% -1.2 pp -10.9 to +7.7 pp 471
Full detail — conditional rates, both directions, drift reconciliation
target / stop long target firstshort target first short stop firstshort neither long, of resolvedshort, of resolved long resolvedshort resolved raw gapchange after detrendingdetrended gap stabilitylong tiesshort tiesn
+0.25% / −0.25% 47.4% 49.6% 50.4% 0.0% 47.4% 49.6% 100% 100% -2.2 pp -1.3 pp -3.5 pp halves agree 3.04% 3.04% 117,662
+0.25% / −0.5% 65.2% 67.5% 32.5% 0.0% 65.2% 67.5% 100% 100% -2.3 pp -1.5 pp -3.8 pp halves agree 1.32% 1.25% 117,662
+0.25% / −1% 79.2% 81.4% 18.6% 0.0% 79.2% 81.4% 100% 100% -2.2 pp -1.4 pp -3.6 pp halves agree 0.50% 0.47% 117,662
+0.25% / −2% 88.8% 89.7% 10.3% 0.0% 88.8% 89.7% 100% 100% -0.9 pp -1.2 pp -2.1 pp halves agree 0.09% 0.08% 117,662
+0.25% / −3% 92.0% 92.2% 7.1% 0.7% 92.7% 92.8% 99% 99% -0.2 pp -1.2 pp -1.4 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.01% 117,662
+0.5% / −0.25% 31.3% 33.5% 66.5% 0.0% 31.3% 33.5% 100% 100% -2.2 pp -1.5 pp -3.7 pp halves agree 1.25% 1.32% 117,662
+0.5% / −0.5% 47.6% 51.5% 48.5% 0.0% 47.7% 51.5% 100% 100% -3.8 pp -1.9 pp -5.7 pp halves agree 0.89% 0.89% 117,662
+0.5% / −1% 65.1% 68.8% 31.2% 0.0% 65.1% 68.8% 100% 100% -3.7 pp -2.2 pp -5.8 pp halves agree 0.38% 0.40% 117,662
+0.5% / −2% 79.5% 81.1% 18.7% 0.2% 79.7% 81.3% 100% 100% -1.6 pp -2.1 pp -3.7 pp halves agree 0.10% 0.08% 117,662
+0.5% / −3% 84.6% 85.1% 13.0% 1.9% 86.4% 86.7% 98% 98% -0.4 pp -2.1 pp -2.5 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.01% 117,662
+1% / −0.25% 18.1% 20.3% 79.7% 0.0% 18.1% 20.3% 100% 100% -2.2 pp -1.3 pp -3.5 pp halves agree 0.47% 0.50% 117,662
+1% / −0.5% 30.8% 34.5% 65.5% 0.0% 30.8% 34.5% 100% 100% -3.7 pp -2.1 pp -5.8 pp halves agree 0.40% 0.38% 117,662
+1% / −1% 47.9% 51.8% 48.1% 0.1% 47.9% 51.9% 100% 100% -4.0 pp -2.7 pp -6.7 pp halves agree 0.22% 0.22% 117,662
+1% / −2% 65.5% 66.7% 31.9% 1.4% 66.6% 67.7% 98% 99% -1.0 pp -3.2 pp -4.2 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.02% 117,662
+1% / −3% 72.0% 72.0% 22.1% 5.9% 76.9% 76.5% 94% 94% +0.4 pp -3.2 pp -2.8 pp HALVES DISAGREE 0.01% 0.00% 117,662
+2% / −0.25% 10.2% 11.1% 88.8% 0.1% 10.2% 11.1% 100% 100% -0.9 pp -1.2 pp -2.1 pp halves agree 0.08% 0.09% 117,662
+2% / −0.5% 18.6% 20.1% 79.6% 0.3% 18.7% 20.2% 100% 100% -1.5 pp -2.1 pp -3.7 pp halves agree 0.08% 0.10% 117,662
+2% / −1% 31.9% 32.7% 65.5% 1.8% 32.3% 33.3% 99% 98% -1.0 pp -3.2 pp -4.2 pp halves agree 0.02% 0.02% 117,662
+2% / −2% 46.7% 44.8% 46.7% 8.5% 51.0% 49.0% 91% 91% +2.0 pp -4.3 pp -2.3 pp HALVES DISAGREE 0.00% 0.00% 117,662
+2% / −3% 52.2% 49.4% 32.3% 18.3% 63.8% 60.4% 82% 82% +3.4 pp -4.9 pp -1.5 pp HALVES DISAGREE 0.00% 0.00% 117,662
+3% / −0.25% 7.1% 7.3% 92.0% 0.7% 7.1% 7.3% 99% 99% -0.2 pp -1.2 pp -1.3 pp halves agree 0.01% 0.02% 117,662
+3% / −0.5% 13.0% 13.3% 84.6% 2.1% 13.2% 13.6% 98% 98% -0.3 pp -2.1 pp -2.4 pp halves agree 0.01% 0.02% 117,662
+3% / −1% 22.1% 21.6% 72.0% 6.4% 23.5% 23.1% 94% 94% +0.4 pp -3.2 pp -2.8 pp HALVES DISAGREE 0.00% 0.01% 117,662
+3% / −2% 32.3% 29.6% 52.2% 18.2% 39.6% 36.2% 82% 82% +3.4 pp -4.9 pp -1.5 pp HALVES DISAGREE 0.00% 0.00% 117,662
+3% / −3% 36.0% 32.8% 36.0% 31.2% 52.4% 47.6% 69% 69% +4.8 pp -5.9 pp -1.2 pp HALVES DISAGREE 0.00% 0.00% 117,662

The three gap columns add: raw + change after detrending = detrended gap. Only the detrended gap is tested and only it carries the interval in the table above. “Of resolved” is the target-first rate among entries that reached either barrier — on cells where little resolves it can read near 100% while the unconditional rate is modest.

13 of 13 Benjamini–Hochberg survivors in the 5d horizon also agree across both halves of history.

Sampling check: re-running this horizon on 263 strictly non-overlapping entries (rather than 117,662 every-bar entries) moves the asymmetry by a median of 3.6 pp and at most 17.8 pp.

Across the 4 horizons this window publishes, 64 of 68 cells that look significant uncorrected survive Benjamini–Hochberg at q=0.05, and 64 of those 64 Benjamini–Hochberg survivors also agree across both halves of history — survives Benjamini-Hochberg AND both halves of history agree in sign. Only confirmed cells are shown in bold and ringed on the charts; a cell that is significant but not confirmed keeps its colour, its number and its interval, marked “not confirmed” rather than hidden. The gaps between all three counts are themselves the point.

How much heat, and how far it runs

Not every window in the barrier grid above resolves: especially at shorter horizons and wider rungs, many windows touch neither barrier before the horizon runs out. This section measures what those windows did anyway, resolved or not — how far price ran in the trader's favour (MFE) and how much heat it took against them (MAE) — from intrabar high and low, never from closes: a stop is hit by the low, not the close. See methodology.

MFE is signed positive and MAE is signed negative. For MFE the higher quantile is the better outcome; for MAE it is the opposite — the lower (more negative) quantile is the worse drawdown, and the higher quantile is the mildest one. The tables below label each MAE column by what it means, not just by its quantile, so the two are never read the same way by mistake.

At the 4h horizon, a +1% / −1% bracket resolves — hits target or stop — in only 32.1% of long entries; the other 67.9% touch neither barrier inside the horizon. Across every 4h window regardless of whether it resolved, the median run in the trader's favour (MFE) was +0.39% and the best tenth of windows reached +1.29%, while the median heat taken against them (MAE) was -0.41% and the worst tenth of windows drew down -1.38% — that is what the rest of the grid's “neither” column was doing instead of resolving.

4h horizon — excursions

7,751 non-overlapping entries · 10,993 coverage-span equivalents.

Sidenon-overlapping entries MFE medianMFE p90 — best case MAE median — typical heatMAE p10 — worst-case heat
Long 7,751 +0.39% +1.29% -0.41% -1.38%
Short 7,751 +0.41% +1.40% -0.38% -1.27%
Heat before the win, by target/stop — long side only

Long-side reading only — there is no short-side version of this table. Of long entries whose maximum favourable excursion reached at least the target rung, what share drew down past the stop rung before the target was reached — i.e. would the stop already have closed a trade that went on to work. A drawdown that happens after the target was reached does not count: the position was already closed by then. Keyed by the same target/stop rungs as the barrier grid above, so the two tables read side by side. See methodology.

target / stopqualifying long entries share drew down past stop firsteffective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 76,540 27.2% 15976
+0.25% / −0.5% 76,540 10.3% 7634
+0.25% / −1% 76,540 2.4% 5655
+0.25% / −2% 76,540 0.3% 8788
+0.25% / −3% 76,540 0.1% 12007
+0.5% / −0.25% 46,748 34.9% 5892
+0.5% / −0.5% 46,748 15.0% 3442
+0.5% / −1% 46,748 4.0% 2754
+0.5% / −2% 46,748 0.5% 4211
+0.5% / −3% 46,748 0.1% 5935
+1% / −0.25% 18,677 42.6% 1932
+1% / −0.5% 18,677 21.5% 1144
+1% / −1% 18,677 6.9% 938
+1% / −2% 18,677 1.1% 1122
+1% / −3% 18,677 0.3% 2052
+2% / −0.25% 4,555 50.9% 540
+2% / −0.5% 4,555 29.4% 317
+2% / −1% 4,555 11.9% 211
+2% / −2% 4,555 3.2% 226
+2% / −3% 4,555 1.2% 394
+3% / −0.25% 1,392 53.2% 150
+3% / −0.5% 1,392 33.7% 105
+3% / −1% 1,392 16.5% 77
+3% / −2% 1,392 5.7% 110
+3% / −3% 1,392 2.8% 139

1d horizon — excursions

1,296 non-overlapping entries · 1,832 coverage-span equivalents.

Sidenon-overlapping entries MFE medianMFE p90 — best case MAE median — typical heatMAE p10 — worst-case heat
Long 1,296 +1.03% +3.15% -1.07% -3.17%
Short 1,296 +1.08% +3.27% -1.02% -3.06%
Heat before the win, by target/stop — long side only

Long-side reading only — there is no short-side version of this table. Of long entries whose maximum favourable excursion reached at least the target rung, what share drew down past the stop rung before the target was reached — i.e. would the stop already have closed a trade that went on to work. A drawdown that happens after the target was reached does not count: the position was already closed by then. Keyed by the same target/stop rungs as the barrier grid above, so the two tables read side by side. See methodology.

target / stopqualifying long entries share drew down past stop firsteffective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 100,506 41.9% 23737
+0.25% / −0.5% 100,506 23.8% 15017
+0.25% / −1% 100,506 9.3% 7021
+0.25% / −2% 100,506 1.7% 6384
+0.25% / −3% 100,506 0.4% 6946
+0.5% / −0.25% 85,383 56.5% 13571
+0.5% / −0.5% 85,383 35.5% 7757
+0.5% / −1% 85,383 14.7% 3481
+0.5% / −2% 85,383 2.7% 3248
+0.5% / −3% 85,383 0.7% 3652
+1% / −0.25% 59,951 65.7% 5844
+1% / −0.5% 59,951 43.5% 2899
+1% / −1% 59,951 18.8% 1675
+1% / −2% 59,951 3.9% 1425
+1% / −3% 59,951 1.2% 1660
+2% / −0.25% 28,484 67.6% 1718
+2% / −0.5% 28,484 45.9% 973
+2% / −1% 28,484 21.6% 627
+2% / −2% 28,484 5.9% 521
+2% / −3% 28,484 2.5% 643
+3% / −0.25% 13,187 67.7% 778
+3% / −0.5% 13,187 47.1% 416
+3% / −1% 13,187 25.0% 300
+3% / −2% 13,187 8.7% 257
+3% / −3% 13,187 4.1% 307

3d horizon — excursions

525 non-overlapping entries · 610 coverage-span equivalents.

Sidenon-overlapping entries MFE medianMFE p90 — best case MAE median — typical heatMAE p10 — worst-case heat
Long 525 +1.76% +5.20% -1.69% -5.00%
Short 525 +1.71% +5.26% -1.73% -4.94%
Heat before the win, by target/stop — long side only

Long-side reading only — there is no short-side version of this table. Of long entries whose maximum favourable excursion reached at least the target rung, what share drew down past the stop rung before the target was reached — i.e. would the stop already have closed a trade that went on to work. A drawdown that happens after the target was reached does not count: the position was already closed by then. Keyed by the same target/stop rungs as the barrier grid above, so the two tables read side by side. See methodology.

target / stopqualifying long entries share drew down past stop firsteffective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 108,019 45.1% 21494
+0.25% / −0.5% 108,019 27.6% 15137
+0.25% / −1% 108,019 13.3% 8613
+0.25% / −2% 108,019 3.9% 5730
+0.25% / −3% 108,019 1.3% 5681
+0.5% / −0.25% 98,124 61.1% 13217
+0.5% / −0.5% 98,124 41.9% 8404
+0.5% / −1% 98,124 21.9% 4494
+0.5% / −2% 98,124 6.5% 3160
+0.5% / −3% 98,124 2.2% 3301
+1% / −0.25% 80,500 73.0% 7245
+1% / −0.5% 80,500 54.9% 4092
+1% / −1% 80,500 31.4% 2451
+1% / −2% 80,500 10.0% 1551
+1% / −3% 80,500 3.2% 1810
+2% / −0.25% 53,245 78.3% 3303
+2% / −0.5% 53,245 61.1% 1733
+2% / −1% 53,245 36.3% 1027
+2% / −2% 53,245 12.7% 795
+2% / −3% 53,245 4.7% 804
+3% / −0.25% 33,355 78.3% 1851
+3% / −0.5% 33,355 61.6% 1035
+3% / −1% 33,355 37.0% 646
+3% / −2% 33,355 13.6% 436
+3% / −3% 33,355 6.3% 421

5d horizon — excursions

263 non-overlapping entries · 366 coverage-span equivalents.

Sidenon-overlapping entries MFE medianMFE p90 — best case MAE median — typical heatMAE p10 — worst-case heat
Long 263 +2.35% +6.69% -2.11% -5.97%
Short 263 +2.15% +6.34% -2.30% -6.27%
Heat before the win, by target/stop — long side only

Long-side reading only — there is no short-side version of this table. Of long entries whose maximum favourable excursion reached at least the target rung, what share drew down past the stop rung before the target was reached — i.e. would the stop already have closed a trade that went on to work. A drawdown that happens after the target was reached does not count: the position was already closed by then. Keyed by the same target/stop rungs as the barrier grid above, so the two tables read side by side. See methodology.

target / stopqualifying long entries share drew down past stop firsteffective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 110,499 46.3% 21184
+0.25% / −0.5% 110,499 29.2% 16440
+0.25% / −1% 110,499 15.1% 9707
+0.25% / −2% 110,499 5.4% 6079
+0.25% / −3% 110,499 2.0% 5259
+0.5% / −0.25% 103,110 62.9% 14179
+0.5% / −0.5% 103,110 44.6% 9484
+0.5% / −1% 103,110 25.3% 5259
+0.5% / −2% 103,110 9.2% 3544
+0.5% / −3% 103,110 3.5% 3016
+1% / −0.25% 89,344 75.6% 8318
+1% / −0.5% 89,344 58.9% 4807
+1% / −1% 89,344 36.7% 3014
+1% / −2% 89,344 13.8% 1820
+1% / −3% 89,344 5.2% 1833
+2% / −0.25% 65,858 81.6% 4578
+2% / −0.5% 65,858 66.6% 2512
+2% / −1% 65,858 43.0% 1429
+2% / −2% 65,858 16.6% 949
+2% / −3% 65,858 6.7% 906
+3% / −0.25% 46,032 81.8% 2680
+3% / −0.5% 46,032 66.8% 1448
+3% / −1% 46,032 43.5% 841
+3% / −2% 46,032 17.3% 518
+3% / −3% 46,032 7.9% 471

How far it moves, and what the spread costs

Horizonmedian movep90 movep99 move non-overlapping entriesn spread as share of median move
4h 0.37% 1.30% 3.26% 7,751 117,392
1d 1.00% 3.18% 1,296 117,397
3d 1.65% 5.07% 525 117,651
5d 2.19% 6.52% 263 117,661

No spread configured for this asset, so cost is not reported.

How move size scales with holding period

Sigma may be scaled by the square root of time; medians, stop distances and targets may not. Variance grows in proportion to time, so σ — its square root — grows with the square root of time. The typical move grows faster than that, so scaling a median from a short horizon to a longer one sets it too tight — on every asset and window this site publishes. The tails do not miss in one direction the way the median does, so a stop distance or a target is read off the measured table above, never scaled to it.

Horizonq√t factor from 4h median move, √t predictionmedian move, measured errormedian ÷ σkurtosis non-overlapping entriesn
4h 16 bars ×1.00 0.369% 0.369% +0.0% 0.400 30.7 7,751 117,392
1d 92 bars ×2.40 0.885% 0.997% +12.6% 0.470 18.8 1,296 117,397
3d 224 bars ×3.74 1.381% 1.649% +19.4% 0.486 12.3 525 117,651
5d 276 bars ×4.15 1.533% 2.194% +43.1% 0.513 8.8 263 117,661

A positive error means the real move is larger than √t predicts. The error is relative — (measured − predicted) ÷ predicted — not itself a move size in percent of price, even though it sits between two columns that are. The reason a positive error is the norm is in the last two columns: aggregation pulls the distribution toward normal, where median ÷ σ is 0.674 and kurtosis is 3.0. By the longest horizon this table actually publishes (5d), median ÷ σ is 0.513 and kurtosis is 8.8 — read those against the Gaussian reference above rather than assuming the shape has normalised by then.

The measurement behind it — variance ratio

VR(q) = Var(q-bar move) ÷ (q × Var(1-bar move)). Above 1 moves extend and a distant target is more reachable than its distance suggests; below 1 they retrace. The null is exactly 1. q is derived from this asset's own bar calendar, so “5d” is however many bars a five-calendar-day window actually contains — usually fewer than five trading days, because it swallows a weekend.

HorizonqVR95% interval as move size vs random walkrobust zp (robust) blockshomoskedastic z verdictsplit-half VR (first / second)
4h 16 bars ≈ 0.17 trading days 0.955 0.872 to 1.037 93% to 102% -1.08 0.280 7,410 -3.56 not significant 0.968 / 0.950 — halves agree
1d 92 bars ≈ 1.00 trading days 0.988 0.814 to 1.163 90% to 108% -0.13 0.897 1,288 -0.36 not significant 0.942 / 1.006 — HALVES DISAGREE
3d 224 bars ≈ 2.43 trading days 0.975 0.725 to 1.225 85% to 111% -0.19 0.846 529 -0.50 not significant 0.956 / 0.983 — halves agree
5d 276 bars ≈ 3.00 trading days 0.965 0.695 to 1.235 83% to 111% -0.25 0.800 429 -0.63 not significant 0.969 / 0.965 — halves agree

Only the robust z (and its p, the column so labelled) is tested; it allows the size of moves to change over time, which this asset's does. The homoskedastic z column assumes it does not, and is shown to make the gap visible: 1 of these horizons would look significant under it against 0 that survive Benjamini–Hochberg on the robust one. That difference is volatility clustering read as mean reversion, not a finding.

The verdict column applies one rule and states it in full: survives Benjamini-Hochberg on the robust standard error AND both halves of history agree in sign of (VR - 1). The split-half column is the second half of that rule shown as data — the same VR recomputed on each disjoint half of the window, at the same q. The comparison is on the sign of (VR − 1), not of VR: VR is always positive, so comparing raw signs would mark every pair as agreeing and the check could never fail. Halves that disagree do not overturn a significant result on their own; they stop it being called confirmed.

2026-08-03T11:19:34.255319 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.11.1, https://matplotlib.org/

Gap risk — A3

How far price moved while you could not trade. Split three ways and never pooled: a venue halt and a weekend are different phenomena and only one of them carries real overnight risk. No stop protects you across either.

Kindnmedianp90p99 >1× median bar>3×
session 0 insufficient data
weekend 221 -0.004 0.073 1.117 22.6% 9.0%
daily break 894 -0.004 0.044 0.205 8.4% 2.0%

Gaps are in USD/oz, signed. Median bar range for comparison: 0.062.

A1 — 15-minute range and true range (execution detail)

Kept for placing an entry, not as a headline: the horizon this site reports at is hours to days, and a multi-day stop sized to a 15-minute range is the error that shakes a trader out of positions that would have worked.

Range

Unitnmeanp10p25p50p75p90p95p99
USD/oz 117662 0.1220 0.0270 0.0390 0.0620 0.1140 0.2570 0.4270 0.9720
% of price 117662 0.3040 0.1065 0.1530 0.2292 0.3599 0.5646 0.7504 1.3552

True range

Unitnmeanp10p25p50p75p90p95p99
USD/oz 116546 0.1223 0.0270 0.0390 0.0620 0.1140 0.2580 0.4280 0.9726
% of price 116546 0.3042 0.1067 0.1533 0.2294 0.3602 0.5648 0.7504 1.3554

Trailing 12 months

23,545 bars · 2025-08-03T22:00:00+00:00 to 2026-08-02T23:45:00+00:00

Over this window the price drifted +57.8% a year. Each cell below shows how much of its long/short gap that drift accounts for; only the remainder is tested.

4h horizon

1,540 non-overlapping entries · 2,184 coverage-span equivalents · median 16 bars per window

At this horizon: 0.25% ≈ 0.15σ · 0.5% ≈ 0.30σ · 1% ≈ 0.61σ · 2% ≈ 1.21σ · 3% ≈ 1.81σ — the same percentage barrier is a far bigger move at 4h than at 5d, which is most of why resolution rates differ across horizons.

2026-08-03T11:19:34.336330 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.11.1, https://matplotlib.org/

Shares of all long entries, not of the ones that resolved: the three add to 100%. “Neither” is the entry still open when the horizon expired — its share is the column below, and across this site it runs from near zero to nearly every entry depending on the horizon and how wide the rungs are. What happened inside those windows is measured in the next section, from intrabar highs and lows.

target / stoplong target firstlong stop first long neitherexcess (long − short)95% CI long effective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 43.0% 54.8% 2.3% -5.0 pp not confirmed -7.5 to -2.7 pp 3581
+0.25% / −0.5% 59.2% 35.0% 5.8% -5.4 pp not confirmed -7.7 to -3.0 pp 2934
+0.25% / −1% 70.0% 18.2% 11.9% -4.7 pp not confirmed -6.8 to -2.7 pp 1783
+0.25% / −2% 74.5% 6.1% 19.5% -2.2 pp not confirmed -3.6 to -0.7 pp 1235
+0.25% / −3% 75.1% 2.7% 22.2% -1.5 pp not confirmed -2.3 to -0.7 pp 1284
+0.5% / −0.25% 28.0% 66.4% 5.6% -5.4 pp not confirmed -7.6 to -3.0 pp 4244
+0.5% / −0.5% 40.6% 47.1% 12.3% -7.4 pp not confirmed -10.6 to -3.9 pp 3486
+0.5% / −1% 50.3% 26.1% 23.6% -7.3 pp not confirmed -10.9 to -3.8 pp 1695
+0.5% / −2% 54.7% 8.9% 36.4% -3.8 pp not confirmed -6.5 to -1.0 pp 909
+0.5% / −3% 55.4% 4.1% 40.5% -3.1 pp not confirmed -4.6 to -1.6 pp 845
+1% / −0.25% 14.3% 74.5% 11.1% -4.5 pp not confirmed -6.5 to -2.4 pp 3052
+1% / −0.5% 21.6% 55.7% 22.7% -7.2 pp not confirmed -10.8 to -3.7 pp 2204
+1% / −1% 27.8% 32.1% 40.1% -9.1 pp not confirmed -14.2 to -4.0 pp 1406
+1% / −2% 31.1% 11.4% 57.5% -6.9 pp not confirmed -12.2 to -1.6 pp 609
+1% / −3% 31.6% 5.5% 62.9% -7.0 pp not confirmed -10.2 to -3.5 pp 499
+2% / −0.25% 4.7% 77.1% 18.2% -2.0 pp not confirmed -3.4 to -0.6 pp 1853
+2% / −0.5% 7.2% 58.8% 34.0% -3.7 pp not confirmed -6.4 to -0.9 pp 1126
+2% / −1% 9.4% 34.6% 56.0% -6.9 pp not confirmed -12.2 to -1.6 pp 764
+2% / −2% 10.8% 12.8% 76.4% -10.2 pp -19.2 to +0.1 pp 431
+2% / −3% 11.2% 6.4% 82.4% -15.0 pp not confirmed -23.1 to -6.7 pp 333
+3% / −0.25% 1.7% 77.5% 20.9% -1.4 pp not confirmed -2.1 to -0.6 pp 2127
+3% / −0.5% 2.5% 59.2% 38.3% -3.0 pp not confirmed -4.5 to -1.4 pp 1164
+3% / −1% 3.3% 35.0% 61.7% -6.9 pp not confirmed -10.2 to -3.4 pp 708
+3% / −2% 3.8% 13.0% 83.1% -15.0 pp not confirmed -23.1 to -6.7 pp 351
+3% / −3% 4.0% 6.6% 89.4% -25.9 pp not confirmed -38.0 to -15.2 pp 289
Full detail — conditional rates, both directions, drift reconciliation
target / stop long target firstshort target first short stop firstshort neither long, of resolvedshort, of resolved long resolvedshort resolved raw gapchange after detrendingdetrended gap stabilitylong tiesshort tiesn
+0.25% / −0.25% 43.0% 46.2% 51.5% 2.3% 44.0% 47.3% 98% 98% -3.3 pp -1.7 pp -5.0 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 8.56% 8.56% 23,364
+0.25% / −0.5% 59.2% 62.8% 31.6% 5.6% 62.8% 66.5% 94% 94% -3.7 pp -1.7 pp -5.4 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 3.60% 3.65% 23,364
+0.25% / −1% 70.0% 73.6% 15.3% 11.1% 79.4% 82.8% 88% 89% -3.4 pp -1.4 pp -4.7 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 1.16% 0.98% 23,364
+0.25% / −2% 74.5% 77.0% 4.8% 18.2% 92.5% 94.1% 81% 82% -1.6 pp -0.6 pp -2.2 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.26% 0.15% 23,364
+0.25% / −3% 75.1% 77.4% 1.7% 20.9% 96.6% 97.8% 78% 79% -1.3 pp -0.2 pp -1.5 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.12% 0.03% 23,364
+0.5% / −0.25% 28.0% 31.4% 62.8% 5.8% 29.6% 33.4% 94% 94% -3.7 pp -1.7 pp -5.4 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 3.65% 3.60% 23,364
+0.5% / −0.5% 40.6% 45.2% 42.4% 12.3% 46.3% 51.6% 88% 88% -5.3 pp -2.1 pp -7.4 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 1.86% 1.86% 23,364
+0.5% / −1% 50.3% 55.1% 22.1% 22.7% 65.9% 71.4% 76% 77% -5.5 pp -1.8 pp -7.3 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.68% 0.58% 23,364
+0.5% / −2% 54.7% 58.7% 7.3% 34.0% 86.0% 88.9% 64% 66% -2.9 pp -0.9 pp -3.8 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.19% 0.12% 23,364
+0.5% / −3% 55.4% 59.1% 2.6% 38.3% 93.1% 95.9% 59% 62% -2.8 pp -0.4 pp -3.1 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.09% 0.02% 23,364
+1% / −0.25% 14.3% 17.0% 71.2% 11.9% 16.1% 19.3% 89% 88% -3.2 pp -1.3 pp -4.5 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.98% 1.16% 23,364
+1% / −0.5% 21.6% 25.4% 51.0% 23.6% 27.9% 33.3% 77% 76% -5.4 pp -1.8 pp -7.2 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.58% 0.68% 23,364
+1% / −1% 27.8% 31.8% 28.1% 40.1% 46.4% 53.1% 60% 60% -6.7 pp -2.4 pp -9.1 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.29% 0.29% 23,364
+1% / −2% 31.1% 34.5% 9.5% 56.0% 73.1% 78.4% 43% 44% -5.3 pp -1.6 pp -6.9 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.09% 0.07% 23,364
+1% / −3% 31.6% 35.0% 3.3% 61.7% 85.2% 91.4% 37% 38% -6.2 pp -0.8 pp -7.0 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.05% 0.01% 23,364
+2% / −0.25% 4.7% 5.8% 74.7% 19.5% 5.7% 7.2% 82% 81% -1.5 pp -0.6 pp -2.0 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.15% 0.26% 23,364
+2% / −0.5% 7.2% 8.7% 54.9% 36.4% 10.9% 13.7% 66% 64% -2.8 pp -0.9 pp -3.7 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.12% 0.19% 23,364
+2% / −1% 9.4% 11.4% 31.2% 57.5% 21.4% 26.7% 44% 43% -5.3 pp -1.6 pp -6.9 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.07% 0.09% 23,364
+2% / −2% 10.8% 12.8% 10.9% 76.4% 45.9% 54.0% 24% 24% -8.2 pp -2.0 pp -10.2 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.02% 0.02% 23,364
+2% / −3% 11.2% 13.0% 3.8% 83.1% 63.8% 77.3% 18% 17% -13.5 pp -1.5 pp -15.0 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.01% 0.00% 23,364
+3% / −0.25% 1.7% 2.6% 75.3% 22.2% 2.1% 3.3% 79% 78% -1.2 pp -0.2 pp -1.4 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.03% 0.12% 23,364
+3% / −0.5% 2.5% 4.0% 55.5% 40.5% 4.1% 6.7% 62% 59% -2.6 pp -0.4 pp -3.0 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.02% 0.09% 23,364
+3% / −1% 3.3% 5.5% 31.7% 62.9% 8.6% 14.7% 38% 37% -6.1 pp -0.8 pp -6.9 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.01% 0.05% 23,364
+3% / −2% 3.8% 6.4% 11.2% 82.4% 22.7% 36.2% 17% 18% -13.4 pp -1.5 pp -15.0 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.00% 0.01% 23,364
+3% / −3% 4.0% 6.6% 4.0% 89.4% 37.9% 62.1% 11% 11% -24.3 pp -1.6 pp -25.9 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.00% 0.00% 23,364

The three gap columns add: raw + change after detrending = detrended gap. Only the detrended gap is tested and only it carries the interval in the table above. “Of resolved” is the target-first rate among entries that reached either barrier — on cells where little resolves it can read near 100% while the unconditional rate is modest.

24 Benjamini–Hochberg survivors in the 4h horizon — not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability, so none can be confirmed here.

Sampling check: re-running this horizon on 1,540 strictly non-overlapping entries (rather than 23,364 every-bar entries) moves the asymmetry by a median of 1.2 pp and at most 7.7 pp.

1d horizon

258 non-overlapping entries · 364 coverage-span equivalents · median 92 bars per window

At this horizon: 0.25% ≈ 0.06σ · 0.5% ≈ 0.13σ · 1% ≈ 0.25σ · 2% ≈ 0.50σ · 3% ≈ 0.75σ — the same percentage barrier is a far bigger move at 4h than at 5d, which is most of why resolution rates differ across horizons.

2026-08-03T11:19:34.430623 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.11.1, https://matplotlib.org/

Shares of all long entries, not of the ones that resolved: the three add to 100%. “Neither” is the entry still open when the horizon expired — its share is the column below, and across this site it runs from near zero to nearly every entry depending on the horizon and how wide the rungs are. What happened inside those windows is measured in the next section, from intrabar highs and lows.

target / stoplong target firstlong stop first long neitherexcess (long − short)95% CI long effective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 43.6% 55.8% 0.6% -5.6 pp not confirmed -8.2 to -3.1 pp 3477
+0.25% / −0.5% 61.5% 37.5% 1.0% -6.2 pp not confirmed -9.1 to -3.3 pp 2708
+0.25% / −1% 75.9% 22.0% 2.1% -5.3 pp not confirmed -8.1 to -2.1 pp 2156
+0.25% / −2% 85.4% 10.7% 3.8% -2.5 pp -4.6 to -0.1 pp 1440
+0.25% / −3% 88.1% 6.8% 5.1% -2.2 pp -4.2 to -0.1 pp 1253
+0.5% / −0.25% 29.9% 69.3% 0.9% -6.2 pp not confirmed -9.1 to -3.4 pp 3699
+0.5% / −0.5% 45.4% 53.0% 1.7% -8.7 pp not confirmed -12.8 to -4.0 pp 2079
+0.5% / −1% 61.2% 34.9% 3.8% -8.1 pp not confirmed -12.5 to -2.8 pp 1420
+0.5% / −2% 74.1% 18.2% 7.7% -4.0 pp -8.1 to +0.5 pp 858
+0.5% / −3% 77.7% 11.9% 10.4% -4.0 pp -7.8 to -0.1 pp 673
+1% / −0.25% 17.9% 80.5% 1.5% -5.1 pp not confirmed -7.9 to -1.9 pp 2464
+1% / −0.5% 29.7% 67.4% 3.0% -8.0 pp not confirmed -12.4 to -2.6 pp 1291
+1% / −1% 44.3% 48.6% 7.1% -8.0 pp not confirmed -14.0 to -1.1 pp 894
+1% / −2% 57.9% 28.2% 13.9% -4.8 pp -11.6 to +2.5 pp 507
+1% / −3% 62.1% 18.5% 19.4% -5.4 pp -11.9 to +1.8 pp 390
+2% / −0.25% 9.6% 87.2% 3.3% -2.4 pp -4.5 to -0.0 pp 2046
+2% / −0.5% 16.7% 76.7% 6.6% -3.9 pp -8.0 to +0.6 pp 1047
+2% / −1% 26.6% 58.7% 14.7% -4.8 pp -11.6 to +2.5 pp 678
+2% / −2% 36.9% 36.4% 26.7% -3.3 pp -13.7 to +6.9 pp 345
+2% / −3% 40.1% 24.3% 35.6% -5.9 pp -17.1 to +5.2 pp 252
+3% / −0.25% 5.8% 89.0% 5.3% -2.1 pp -4.1 to -0.1 pp 1461
+3% / −0.5% 10.1% 79.3% 10.6% -3.9 pp -7.8 to -0.0 pp 826
+3% / −1% 16.3% 62.1% 21.6% -5.3 pp -11.9 to +1.9 pp 501
+3% / −2% 22.6% 39.7% 37.6% -5.8 pp -17.1 to +5.3 pp 256
+3% / −3% 24.9% 26.8% 48.3% -8.9 pp -23.0 to +5.4 pp 184
Full detail — conditional rates, both directions, drift reconciliation
target / stop long target firstshort target first short stop firstshort neither long, of resolvedshort, of resolved long resolvedshort resolved raw gapchange after detrendingdetrended gap stabilitylong tiesshort tiesn
+0.25% / −0.25% 43.6% 47.2% 52.2% 0.6% 43.9% 47.5% 99% 99% -3.6 pp -1.9 pp -5.6 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 8.57% 8.57% 23,364
+0.25% / −0.5% 61.5% 65.6% 33.5% 0.9% 62.1% 66.2% 99% 99% -4.1 pp -2.1 pp -6.2 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 3.63% 3.66% 23,364
+0.25% / −1% 75.9% 79.5% 18.9% 1.5% 77.5% 80.8% 98% 98% -3.3 pp -2.0 pp -5.3 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 1.19% 0.99% 23,364
+0.25% / −2% 85.4% 87.0% 9.7% 3.3% 88.9% 90.0% 96% 97% -1.1 pp -1.4 pp -2.5 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.26% 0.15% 23,364
+0.25% / −3% 88.1% 88.9% 5.8% 5.3% 92.8% 93.9% 95% 95% -1.1 pp -1.1 pp -2.2 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.12% 0.03% 23,364
+0.5% / −0.25% 29.9% 33.9% 65.1% 1.0% 30.1% 34.2% 99% 99% -4.1 pp -2.1 pp -6.2 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 3.66% 3.63% 23,364
+0.5% / −0.5% 45.4% 51.1% 47.3% 1.7% 46.1% 51.9% 98% 98% -5.8 pp -2.9 pp -8.7 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 1.88% 1.88% 23,364
+0.5% / −1% 61.2% 66.8% 30.2% 3.0% 63.7% 68.8% 96% 97% -5.1 pp -3.0 pp -8.1 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.68% 0.58% 23,364
+0.5% / −2% 74.1% 76.5% 16.8% 6.6% 80.3% 82.0% 92% 93% -1.7 pp -2.3 pp -4.0 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.19% 0.12% 23,364
+0.5% / −3% 77.7% 79.3% 10.2% 10.6% 86.7% 88.6% 90% 89% -1.9 pp -2.1 pp -4.0 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.09% 0.02% 23,364
+1% / −0.25% 17.9% 20.9% 77.1% 2.1% 18.2% 21.3% 98% 98% -3.1 pp -2.0 pp -5.1 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.99% 1.19% 23,364
+1% / −0.5% 29.7% 34.2% 61.9% 3.8% 30.6% 35.6% 97% 96% -5.0 pp -2.9 pp -8.0 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.58% 0.68% 23,364
+1% / −1% 44.3% 48.3% 44.6% 7.1% 47.7% 52.0% 93% 93% -4.2 pp -3.7 pp -8.0 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.30% 0.30% 23,364
+1% / −2% 57.9% 58.6% 26.7% 14.7% 67.2% 68.7% 86% 85% -1.5 pp -3.4 pp -4.8 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.09% 0.07% 23,364
+1% / −3% 62.1% 62.1% 16.3% 21.6% 77.0% 79.2% 81% 78% -2.2 pp -3.2 pp -5.4 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.05% 0.01% 23,364
+2% / −0.25% 9.6% 10.5% 85.7% 3.8% 9.9% 10.9% 97% 96% -1.0 pp -1.4 pp -2.4 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.15% 0.26% 23,364
+2% / −0.5% 16.7% 18.0% 74.3% 7.7% 17.9% 19.5% 93% 92% -1.6 pp -2.3 pp -3.9 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.12% 0.19% 23,364
+2% / −1% 26.6% 28.1% 58.0% 13.9% 31.2% 32.6% 85% 86% -1.4 pp -3.4 pp -4.8 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.07% 0.09% 23,364
+2% / −2% 36.9% 36.4% 36.9% 26.7% 50.3% 49.6% 73% 73% +0.7 pp -3.9 pp -3.3 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.02% 0.02% 23,364
+2% / −3% 40.1% 39.7% 22.6% 37.6% 62.2% 63.7% 64% 62% -1.5 pp -4.3 pp -5.9 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.01% 0.00% 23,364
+3% / −0.25% 5.8% 6.7% 88.2% 5.1% 6.1% 7.1% 95% 95% -1.0 pp -1.1 pp -2.1 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.03% 0.12% 23,364
+3% / −0.5% 10.1% 11.8% 77.8% 10.4% 11.3% 13.1% 89% 90% -1.8 pp -2.1 pp -3.9 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.02% 0.09% 23,364
+3% / −1% 16.3% 18.5% 62.1% 19.4% 20.7% 22.9% 78% 81% -2.2 pp -3.2 pp -5.3 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.01% 0.05% 23,364
+3% / −2% 22.6% 24.3% 40.1% 35.6% 36.3% 37.8% 62% 64% -1.5 pp -4.3 pp -5.8 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.00% 0.01% 23,364
+3% / −3% 24.9% 26.8% 24.9% 48.3% 48.2% 51.8% 52% 52% -3.6 pp -5.2 pp -8.9 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.00% 0.00% 23,364

The three gap columns add: raw + change after detrending = detrended gap. Only the detrended gap is tested and only it carries the interval in the table above. “Of resolved” is the target-first rate among entries that reached either barrier — on cells where little resolves it can read near 100% while the unconditional rate is modest.

9 Benjamini–Hochberg survivors in the 1d horizon — not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability, so none can be confirmed here.

Sampling check: re-running this horizon on 258 strictly non-overlapping entries (rather than 23,364 every-bar entries) moves the asymmetry by a median of 5.7 pp and at most 10.2 pp.

3d horizon

105 non-overlapping entries · 121 coverage-span equivalents · median 222 bars per window

At this horizon: 0.25% ≈ 0.04σ · 0.5% ≈ 0.08σ · 1% ≈ 0.16σ · 2% ≈ 0.32σ · 3% ≈ 0.49σ — the same percentage barrier is a far bigger move at 4h than at 5d, which is most of why resolution rates differ across horizons.

2026-08-03T11:19:34.527149 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.11.1, https://matplotlib.org/

Shares of all long entries, not of the ones that resolved: the three add to 100%. “Neither” is the entry still open when the horizon expired — its share is the column below, and across this site it runs from near zero to nearly every entry depending on the horizon and how wide the rungs are. What happened inside those windows is measured in the next section, from intrabar highs and lows.

target / stoplong target firstlong stop first long neitherexcess (long − short)95% CI long effective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 43.9% 56.1% 0.0% -5.5 pp not confirmed -8.2 to -3.0 pp 3450
+0.25% / −0.5% 62.0% 38.0% 0.0% -6.1 pp not confirmed -9.1 to -3.1 pp 2740
+0.25% / −1% 77.1% 22.8% 0.1% -5.1 pp not confirmed -8.1 to -1.9 pp 2175
+0.25% / −2% 87.9% 11.7% 0.4% -2.2 pp -4.7 to +0.4 pp 1570
+0.25% / −3% 91.4% 7.6% 1.0% -1.4 pp -3.7 to +1.1 pp 1256
+0.5% / −0.25% 30.3% 69.7% 0.0% -6.0 pp not confirmed -9.0 to -3.1 pp 3534
+0.5% / −0.5% 46.3% 53.7% 0.0% -8.3 pp not confirmed -12.5 to -3.8 pp 2080
+0.5% / −1% 63.2% 36.4% 0.4% -7.7 pp not confirmed -12.5 to -2.2 pp 1370
+0.5% / −2% 78.7% 20.2% 1.2% -3.2 pp -7.6 to +1.5 pp 830
+0.5% / −3% 84.1% 13.5% 2.3% -2.3 pp -6.7 to +2.1 pp 659
+1% / −0.25% 18.6% 81.3% 0.1% -4.9 pp not confirmed -7.9 to -1.6 pp 2251
+1% / −0.5% 31.1% 68.6% 0.3% -7.6 pp not confirmed -12.3 to -2.1 pp 1175
+1% / −1% 47.9% 51.2% 0.9% -6.6 pp -12.8 to +0.5 pp 805
+1% / −2% 65.5% 31.7% 2.8% -2.0 pp -9.2 to +5.6 pp 462
+1% / −3% 72.7% 22.3% 4.9% -1.8 pp -9.0 to +6.2 pp 366
+2% / −0.25% 11.1% 88.6% 0.3% -2.1 pp -4.5 to +0.5 pp 1866
+2% / −0.5% 19.7% 79.2% 1.1% -3.2 pp -7.6 to +1.5 pp 940
+2% / −1% 33.3% 63.4% 3.3% -2.0 pp -9.3 to +5.6 pp 573
+2% / −2% 48.7% 43.2% 8.1% +1.5 pp -9.6 to +12.0 pp 306
+2% / −3% 56.1% 31.7% 12.2% -0.3 pp -12.8 to +11.6 pp 233
+3% / −0.25% 7.8% 91.1% 1.0% -1.3 pp -3.7 to +1.1 pp 1415
+3% / −0.5% 14.2% 83.0% 2.8% -2.2 pp -6.6 to +2.2 pp 778
+3% / −1% 24.3% 68.8% 6.9% -1.8 pp -8.9 to +6.2 pp 450
+3% / −2% 35.9% 49.4% 14.8% -0.3 pp -12.8 to +11.6 pp 242
+3% / −3% 41.6% 37.4% 21.0% -1.7 pp -16.7 to +12.6 pp 174
Full detail — conditional rates, both directions, drift reconciliation
target / stop long target firstshort target first short stop firstshort neither long, of resolvedshort, of resolved long resolvedshort resolved raw gapchange after detrendingdetrended gap stabilitylong tiesshort tiesn
+0.25% / −0.25% 43.9% 47.4% 52.6% 0.0% 43.9% 47.4% 100% 100% -3.5 pp -2.0 pp -5.5 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 8.67% 8.67% 23,364
+0.25% / −0.5% 62.0% 66.0% 34.0% 0.0% 62.0% 66.0% 100% 100% -4.0 pp -2.1 pp -6.1 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 3.75% 3.74% 23,364
+0.25% / −1% 77.1% 80.3% 19.7% 0.1% 77.2% 80.3% 100% 100% -3.1 pp -2.0 pp -5.1 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 1.24% 1.02% 23,364
+0.25% / −2% 87.9% 88.5% 11.2% 0.3% 88.3% 88.7% 100% 100% -0.5 pp -1.7 pp -2.2 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.26% 0.17% 23,364
+0.25% / −3% 91.4% 91.1% 7.9% 1.0% 92.4% 92.0% 99% 99% +0.3 pp -1.7 pp -1.4 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.12% 0.03% 23,364
+0.5% / −0.25% 30.3% 34.2% 65.8% 0.0% 30.3% 34.2% 100% 100% -3.9 pp -2.1 pp -6.0 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 3.74% 3.75% 23,364
+0.5% / −0.5% 46.3% 51.7% 48.3% 0.0% 46.3% 51.7% 100% 100% -5.4 pp -2.9 pp -8.3 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 1.98% 1.98% 23,364
+0.5% / −1% 63.2% 68.0% 31.7% 0.3% 63.4% 68.2% 100% 100% -4.8 pp -3.0 pp -7.7 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.71% 0.60% 23,364
+0.5% / −2% 78.7% 79.1% 19.8% 1.1% 79.6% 79.9% 99% 99% -0.3 pp -2.9 pp -3.2 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.19% 0.12% 23,364
+0.5% / −3% 84.1% 83.0% 14.2% 2.8% 86.1% 85.4% 98% 97% +0.7 pp -3.0 pp -2.3 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.09% 0.02% 23,364
+1% / −0.25% 18.6% 21.5% 78.3% 0.1% 18.7% 21.5% 100% 100% -2.9 pp -2.0 pp -4.9 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 1.02% 1.24% 23,364
+1% / −0.5% 31.1% 35.7% 63.9% 0.4% 31.2% 35.9% 100% 100% -4.6 pp -2.9 pp -7.6 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.60% 0.71% 23,364
+1% / −1% 47.9% 50.9% 48.2% 0.9% 48.3% 51.4% 99% 99% -3.0 pp -3.6 pp -6.6 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.30% 0.30% 23,364
+1% / −2% 65.5% 63.3% 33.4% 3.3% 67.4% 65.5% 97% 97% +1.9 pp -3.9 pp -2.0 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.09% 0.07% 23,364
+1% / −3% 72.7% 68.8% 24.3% 6.9% 76.5% 73.9% 95% 93% +2.6 pp -4.4 pp -1.8 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.05% 0.01% 23,364
+2% / −0.25% 11.1% 11.4% 88.1% 0.4% 11.1% 11.5% 100% 100% -0.4 pp -1.7 pp -2.1 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.17% 0.26% 23,364
+2% / −0.5% 19.7% 20.0% 78.9% 1.2% 19.9% 20.2% 99% 99% -0.3 pp -2.9 pp -3.2 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.12% 0.19% 23,364
+2% / −1% 33.3% 31.6% 65.6% 2.8% 34.5% 32.5% 97% 97% +1.9 pp -3.9 pp -2.0 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.07% 0.09% 23,364
+2% / −2% 48.7% 43.2% 48.8% 8.1% 53.0% 47.0% 92% 92% +6.0 pp -4.5 pp +1.5 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.02% 0.02% 23,364
+2% / −3% 56.1% 49.4% 35.9% 14.8% 63.9% 57.9% 88% 85% +6.0 pp -6.3 pp -0.3 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.01% 0.00% 23,364
+3% / −0.25% 7.8% 7.4% 91.6% 1.0% 7.9% 7.5% 99% 99% +0.4 pp -1.7 pp -1.3 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.03% 0.12% 23,364
+3% / −0.5% 14.2% 13.5% 84.2% 2.3% 14.6% 13.8% 97% 98% +0.8 pp -3.0 pp -2.2 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.02% 0.09% 23,364
+3% / −1% 24.3% 22.3% 72.8% 4.9% 26.1% 23.4% 93% 95% +2.7 pp -4.5 pp -1.8 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.01% 0.05% 23,364
+3% / −2% 35.9% 31.7% 56.1% 12.2% 42.1% 36.1% 85% 88% +6.0 pp -6.3 pp -0.3 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.00% 0.01% 23,364
+3% / −3% 41.6% 37.4% 41.6% 21.0% 52.7% 47.3% 79% 79% +5.4 pp -7.0 pp -1.7 pp not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability 0.00% 0.00% 23,364

The three gap columns add: raw + change after detrending = detrended gap. Only the detrended gap is tested and only it carries the interval in the table above. “Of resolved” is the target-first rate among entries that reached either barrier — on cells where little resolves it can read near 100% while the unconditional rate is modest.

8 Benjamini–Hochberg survivors in the 3d horizon — not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability, so none can be confirmed here.

Sampling check: re-running this horizon on 105 strictly non-overlapping entries (rather than 23,364 every-bar entries) moves the asymmetry by a median of 6.2 pp and at most 15.9 pp.

5d horizon

Insufficient data — 53 non-overlapping 5d entries in this coverage span, below the floor of 100. A hit rate estimated on fewer cannot distinguish the deviations this statistic exists to detect.

Across the 3 horizons this window publishes, 41 of 47 cells that look significant uncorrected survive Benjamini–Hochberg at q=0.05, and 0 of those 41 Benjamini–Hochberg survivors also agree across both halves of history — survives Benjamini-Hochberg AND both halves of history agree in sign. Only confirmed cells are shown in bold and ringed on the charts; a cell that is significant but not confirmed keeps its colour, its number and its interval, marked “not confirmed” rather than hidden. The gaps between all three counts are themselves the point.

How much heat, and how far it runs

Not every window in the barrier grid above resolves: especially at shorter horizons and wider rungs, many windows touch neither barrier before the horizon runs out. This section measures what those windows did anyway, resolved or not — how far price ran in the trader's favour (MFE) and how much heat it took against them (MAE) — from intrabar high and low, never from closes: a stop is hit by the low, not the close. See methodology.

MFE is signed positive and MAE is signed negative. For MFE the higher quantile is the better outcome; for MAE it is the opposite — the lower (more negative) quantile is the worse drawdown, and the higher quantile is the mildest one. The tables below label each MAE column by what it means, not just by its quantile, so the two are never read the same way by mistake.

At the 4h horizon, a +1% / −1% bracket resolves — hits target or stop — in only 59.9% of long entries; the other 40.1% touch neither barrier inside the horizon. Across every 4h window regardless of whether it resolved, the median run in the trader's favour (MFE) was +0.60% and the best tenth of windows reached +2.15%, while the median heat taken against them (MAE) was -0.66% and the worst tenth of windows drew down -2.32% — that is what the rest of the grid's “neither” column was doing instead of resolving.

4h horizon — excursions

1,540 non-overlapping entries · 2,184 coverage-span equivalents.

Sidenon-overlapping entries MFE medianMFE p90 — best case MAE median — typical heatMAE p10 — worst-case heat
Long 1,540 +0.60% +2.15% -0.66% -2.32%
Short 1,540 +0.66% +2.38% -0.59% -2.10%
Heat before the win, by target/stop — long side only

Long-side reading only — there is no short-side version of this table. Of long entries whose maximum favourable excursion reached at least the target rung, what share drew down past the stop rung before the target was reached — i.e. would the stop already have closed a trade that went on to work. A drawdown that happens after the target was reached does not count: the position was already closed by then. Keyed by the same target/stop rungs as the barrier grid above, so the two tables read side by side. See methodology.

target / stopqualifying long entries share drew down past stop firsteffective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 17,637 31.7% 6397
+0.25% / −0.5% 17,637 16.8% 2799
+0.25% / −1% 17,637 5.7% 1661
+0.25% / −2% 17,637 1.0% 2297
+0.25% / −3% 17,637 0.3% 2956
+0.5% / −0.25% 13,025 43.3% 2848
+0.5% / −0.5% 13,025 23.9% 1453
+0.5% / −1% 13,025 8.5% 999
+0.5% / −2% 13,025 1.5% 1278
+0.5% / −3% 13,025 0.5% 1935
+1% / −0.25% 7,455 52.1% 1217
+1% / −0.5% 7,455 30.7% 656
+1% / −1% 7,455 12.1% 509
+1% / −2% 7,455 2.4% 575
+1% / −3% 7,455 0.8% 1028
+2% / −0.25% 2,675 57.8% 484
+2% / −0.5% 2,675 36.3% 259
+2% / −1% 2,675 17.0% 175
+2% / −2% 2,675 5.1% 181
+2% / −3% 2,675 2.1% 323
+3% / −0.25% 974 59.1% 155
+3% / −0.5% 974 38.8% 95
+3% / −1% 974 20.6% 68
+3% / −2% 974 8.0% 108
+3% / −3% 974 4.0% 131

1d horizon — excursions

258 non-overlapping entries · 364 coverage-span equivalents.

Sidenon-overlapping entries MFE medianMFE p90 — best case MAE median — typical heatMAE p10 — worst-case heat
Long 258 +1.64% +5.10% -1.51% -5.57%
Short 258 +1.53% +5.90% -1.62% -4.86%
Heat before the win, by target/stop — long side only

Long-side reading only — there is no short-side version of this table. Of long entries whose maximum favourable excursion reached at least the target rung, what share drew down past the stop rung before the target was reached — i.e. would the stop already have closed a trade that went on to work. A drawdown that happens after the target was reached does not count: the position was already closed by then. Keyed by the same target/stop rungs as the barrier grid above, so the two tables read side by side. See methodology.

target / stopqualifying long entries share drew down past stop firsteffective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 20,951 41.8% 4385
+0.25% / −0.5% 20,951 27.4% 7140
+0.25% / −1% 20,951 14.0% 2642
+0.25% / −2% 20,951 4.4% 1998
+0.25% / −3% 20,951 1.6% 1757
+0.5% / −0.25% 18,722 58.2% 3889
+0.5% / −0.5% 18,722 41.0% 3196
+0.5% / −1% 18,722 22.7% 1353
+0.5% / −2% 18,722 7.3% 1089
+0.5% / −3% 18,722 2.9% 990
+1% / −0.25% 15,212 70.9% 2762
+1% / −0.5% 15,212 53.5% 1241
+1% / −1% 15,212 31.4% 756
+1% / −2% 15,212 11.0% 537
+1% / −3% 15,212 4.6% 523
+2% / −0.25% 10,061 77.5% 1246
+2% / −0.5% 10,061 60.9% 610
+2% / −1% 10,061 38.0% 375
+2% / −2% 10,061 14.3% 254
+2% / −3% 10,061 6.9% 316
+3% / −0.25% 6,361 78.7% 760
+3% / −0.5% 6,361 62.7% 425
+3% / −1% 6,361 40.2% 259
+3% / −2% 6,361 17.0% 181
+3% / −3% 6,361 8.4% 208

3d horizon — excursions

105 non-overlapping entries · 121 coverage-span equivalents.

Sidenon-overlapping entries MFE medianMFE p90 — best case MAE median — typical heatMAE p10 — worst-case heat
Long 105 +2.97% -2.45%
Short 105 +2.51% -2.88%
Heat before the win, by target/stop — long side only

Long-side reading only — there is no short-side version of this table. Of long entries whose maximum favourable excursion reached at least the target rung, what share drew down past the stop rung before the target was reached — i.e. would the stop already have closed a trade that went on to work. A drawdown that happens after the target was reached does not count: the position was already closed by then. Keyed by the same target/stop rungs as the barrier grid above, so the two tables read side by side. See methodology.

target / stopqualifying long entries share drew down past stop firsteffective n
+0.25% / −0.25% 22,167 44.6% 3109
+0.25% / −0.5% 22,167 30.7% 5857
+0.25% / −1% 22,167 17.4% 4594
+0.25% / −2% 22,167 7.1% 2557
+0.25% / −3% 22,167 3.5% 2354
+0.5% / −0.25% 20,962 62.1% 2979
+0.5% / −0.5% 20,962 46.2% 2968
+0.5% / −1% 20,962 28.8% 2198
+0.5% / −2% 20,962 12.1% 1255
+0.5% / −3% 20,962 6.1% 1152
+1% / −0.25% 18,877 75.7% 3189
+1% / −0.5% 18,877 60.7% 1879
+1% / −1% 18,877 40.4% 1292
+1% / −2% 18,877 18.8% 617
+1% / −3% 18,877 9.9% 556
+2% / −0.25% 15,129 82.6% 2338
+2% / −0.5% 15,129 69.4% 1178
+2% / −1% 15,129 48.4% 639
+2% / −2% 15,129 24.7% 332
+2% / −3% 15,129 13.4% 277
+3% / −0.25% 11,579 84.1% 1325
+3% / −0.5% 11,579 71.4% 768
+3% / −1% 11,579 51.0% 390
+3% / −2% 11,579 27.6% 209
+3% / −3% 11,579 16.0% 186

5d horizon — excursions

Insufficient data — 53 non-overlapping 5d entries in this coverage span, below the floor of 100. An excursion quantile estimated on fewer cannot distinguish real heat from noise.

How far it moves, and what the spread costs

Horizonmedian movep90 movep99 move non-overlapping entriesn spread as share of median move
4h 0.60% 2.15% 1,540 23,310
1d 1.63% 5.17% 258 23,310
3d 2.62% 105 23,362
5d insufficient data (53 non-overlapping entries)

No spread configured for this asset, so cost is not reported.

How move size scales with holding period

Sigma may be scaled by the square root of time; medians, stop distances and targets may not. Variance grows in proportion to time, so σ — its square root — grows with the square root of time. The typical move grows faster than that, so scaling a median from a short horizon to a longer one sets it too tight — on every asset and window this site publishes. The tails do not miss in one direction the way the median does, so a stop distance or a target is read off the measured table above, never scaled to it.

Horizonq√t factor from 4h median move, √t predictionmedian move, measured errormedian ÷ σkurtosis non-overlapping entriesn
4h 16 bars ×1.00 0.600% 0.600% +0.0% 0.398 20.2 1,540 23,310
1d 92 bars ×2.40 1.438% 1.631% +13.4% 0.472 12.5 258 23,310
3d 222 bars ×3.72 2.234% 2.622% +17.4% 0.475 8.0 105 23,362
5d insufficient data — the horizon-move table did not publish this horizon

A positive error means the real move is larger than √t predicts. The error is relative — (measured − predicted) ÷ predicted — not itself a move size in percent of price, even though it sits between two columns that are. The reason a positive error is the norm is in the last two columns: aggregation pulls the distribution toward normal, where median ÷ σ is 0.674 and kurtosis is 3.0. By the longest horizon this table actually publishes (3d), median ÷ σ is 0.475 and kurtosis is 8.0 — read those against the Gaussian reference above rather than assuming the shape has normalised by then.

The measurement behind it — variance ratio

VR(q) = Var(q-bar move) ÷ (q × Var(1-bar move)). Above 1 moves extend and a distant target is more reachable than its distance suggests; below 1 they retrace. The null is exactly 1. q is derived from this asset's own bar calendar, so “5d” is however many bars a five-calendar-day window actually contains — usually fewer than five trading days, because it swallows a weekend.

HorizonqVR95% interval as move size vs random walkrobust zp (robust) blockshomoskedastic z verdictsplit-half VR (first / second)
4h 16 bars ≈ 0.17 trading days 0.957 0.811 to 1.103 90% to 105% -0.58 0.565 1,471 -1.49 not significant not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability
1d 92 bars ≈ 1.00 trading days 1.032 0.723 to 1.341 85% to 116% +0.20 0.840 255 +0.44 not significant not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability
3d 222 bars ≈ 2.41 trading days 1.008 0.567 to 1.449 75% to 120% +0.04 0.972 106 +0.07 not significant not computed: this window is too short for two halves to detect instability
5d insufficient data — 85 non-overlapping q-blocks at this horizon, below the floor of 100

Only the robust z (and its p, the column so labelled) is tested; it allows the size of moves to change over time, which this asset's does. The homoskedastic z column assumes it does not, and is shown to make the gap visible: 0 of these horizons would look significant under it against 0 that survive Benjamini–Hochberg on the robust one. The two counts do not diverge on this window, so there is no such gap here for volatility clustering to have manufactured.

The verdict column applies one rule and states it in full: survives Benjamini-Hochberg on the robust standard error AND both halves of history agree in sign of (VR - 1). The split-half column is the second half of that rule shown as data — the same VR recomputed on each disjoint half of the window, at the same q. The comparison is on the sign of (VR − 1), not of VR: VR is always positive, so comparing raw signs would mark every pair as agreeing and the check could never fail. Halves that disagree do not overturn a significant result on their own; they stop it being called confirmed.

2026-08-03T11:19:34.609584 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.11.1, https://matplotlib.org/

Gap risk — A3

How far price moved while you could not trade. Split three ways and never pooled: a venue halt and a weekend are different phenomena and only one of them carries real overnight risk. No stop protects you across either.

Kindnmedianp90p99 >1× median bar>3×
session 0 insufficient data
weekend 26 insufficient data
daily break 113 0.029 0.156 0.441 3.5% 0.0%

Gaps are in USD/oz, signed. Median bar range for comparison: 0.239.

A1 — 15-minute range and true range (execution detail)

Kept for placing an entry, not as a headline: the horizon this site reports at is hours to days, and a multi-day stop sized to a 15-minute range is the error that shakes a trader out of positions that would have worked.

Range

Unitnmeanp10p25p50p75p90p95p99
USD/oz 23364 0.3476 0.0710 0.1320 0.2390 0.4232 0.7060 0.9740 1.9084
% of price 23364 0.4924 0.1519 0.2330 0.3708 0.5894 0.9251 1.2484 2.3038

True range

Unitnmeanp10p25p50p75p90p95p99
USD/oz 23224 0.3479 0.0710 0.1320 0.2400 0.4240 0.7057 0.9730 1.9090
% of price 23224 0.4925 0.1516 0.2330 0.3710 0.5898 0.9248 1.2446 2.3063