Research & backtests
Liquidity LlamaLiquidity LlamaMarkets · Macro · Crypto
Backtests

Research & Backtests

Methods tested before they’re trusted. Where a setup works, the numbers are here; where it doesn’t, that’s here too. Sample sizes, timeframes and limitations are stated in every study — a clean narrative and a positive edge are not the same thing.

Do naked levels actually hold? 503 sessions of ES futures

real dataES futuresfirst-touch study503 sessions
Naked levels first-touch study
// drop assets/naked-levels.png here to illustrate this study

The Severin method trades prior-day and prior-week levels — open, high, low and the EQ midpoint. The question worth answering before risking anything: on first touch, which of those levels are actually respected? I tested all of them across 503 daily sessions.

57.8%Prior-day low
55.4%Prior-week low
52.8%Prior-day open
50.3%Prior-day EQ
50.0%Prior-day high
48.6%Prior-week high

What the numbers say

Support holds; resistance doesn’t. Prior-day low and prior-week low are the only levels with a real edge on first touch. Prior-day open is marginal. The highs and the EQ midpoint are coin-flips at 48.6–50.3% — meaning there is no edge in fading them blind, which is precisely why the method demands order-flow confirmation rather than a mechanical bounce trade.

The timeframe finding mattered more than the hit rates. The documented 12-tick stop only makes sense at 1m–5m. At 30m it sits inside the noise, and first-touch fades won just 28%. The COT/COC reclaim pattern is a 1m/5m order-flow signal and forms zero times on 30m bars. Run the trigger on the resolution it lives on, never on a higher one because the data was easier to get.

Limitations, stated plainly. Level-hold rates are measured on 503 daily sessions and are robust. The profitability of the full reclaim strategy is not established here: free intraday history runs to about five days at 5m, which is far too thin for a strategy P&L. Proper numbers need the TradingView Strategy Tester on the native timeframe.

See the indicator this tests →

Swing-failure patterns at first touch

swing failurefirst touchin progress
Swing failure pattern study
// drop assets/sfp-study.png here

A companion study applying the same discipline to swing-failure patterns: measure the hit rate at first touch before trusting the setup, rather than sizing on a chart that looks convincing in hindsight. Methodology mirrors the naked-levels study so results are directly comparable.

Status: data collection. Results will be published here with the same caveats — including if the answer is “no edge.”

The ISM PMI macro strategy

macrodiffusion indexlong / short
PMI + Sentiment Cycle Buy Indicator
PMI + Sentiment Cycle Buy Indicator — the timing overlay behind the strategy.

A rules-based read of the ISM Report On Business: go long cyclicals with pricing power when the PMI is rising and broad-based, underweight the industries already contracting. Built as a repeatable monthly system — one editable data file regenerates the dashboard, the Excel tracker with its sub-index heatmap, and the written playbook.

54.0Manufacturing
54.5Services
16 / 17Industries growing
<50Employment, both

Unresolved: the “long cyclicals when PMI is rising” rule has not yet been backtested end-to-end. PMI is a diffusion survey rather than hard output, and the market may already price it. Until the test is run, the tilts are research starters.

Read the playbook → · Download the tracker →

How these studies are run

Every study states its instrument, sample size, timeframe and the exact rule being tested. Hit rates are reported for the full sample, not a favourable window. Where free data is too thin to answer a question, the study says so rather than reporting a number that looks precise and isn’t.

Two failure modes worth naming, because they affect how any published result should be read: overfitting — a rule tuned until history looks good will rarely survive contact with live markets; and edge decay — a genuine edge that becomes widely known tends to stop working. Neither is solved by a bigger backtest.

For educational purposes only. Backtested results are not indicative of future performance and do not account for slippage, fees or live execution. Nothing here is investment advice.