Tickfloor

Break of Structure: does it work?

None of these versions passed. Sample: 33,501 completed trades over 2017-08-17 to 2025-03-14 (7.6 years).

Break of structure is the idea that a series of higher highs and higher lows means go long, and lower highs and lower lows means go short. It is the base layer of most smart-money content.

The rule we tested. Swing points are 2-bar fractals. Go long after a higher high and higher low, short after a lower high and lower low. Coded mechanically, so it does not cover discretionary structure reads.

See a full worked example of one of these reads (free, no account)

Receipt: parameters, data, window and result file
Run id
t100-bos-h, run 2026-10-06
Frozen parameters
timeframe 1h; L=2
Data source
vendor not recorded in the result file; data fingerprint sha256 d482077d31ca2631...
Instruments and coverage
8 assets: BTCUSDT, BNBUSDT, XRPUSDT, ADAUSDT, DOGEUSDT, LTCUSDT, LINKUSDT, TRXUSDT
Date window
2017-08-17 to 2025-03-14 (discovery cutoff 2025-03-15)
Sample
33,501 completed trades over 2017-08-17 to 2025-03-14 (7.6 years)
Cost rule
0.10% to 0.12% per side; charged on every change in position/weight; benchmark pays none; no funding/borrow on shorts
Fill rule
not recorded
Benchmark
equal-weight long of the same assets, rebalanced daily across assets trading that day (no costs)
Rule source (public)
not published yet
Run record (public)
research/hunt2/ledger.jsonl, line with id t100-bos-h
Full result file
not published yet

None of these versions passed. crypto pairs −163.0 pts/yr vs the benchmark (unadjusted p=1.000, BH-adjusted q=1.000). None cleared our Benjamini-Hochberg q<0.10 bar once counted alongside every other rule we tested. That covers the versions, costs and benchmark described here, not every version of the rule. These are historical diagnostics, not validation under Testing Standard v2: the backtest harness predates that standard and has not been re-run to meet it.

Failed: only the tested version above. Not tested: Discretionary swing marking; other fractal widths; higher timeframes. A result for the tested version says nothing about these.

This is one line in a bigger check. The research desk has run 694 strategies, most against an equal-weight benchmark of the same assets rebalanced daily that pays no costs (the strategies pay theirs). After correcting for how many we tried (Benjamini-Hochberg, 777 tests), 0 passed. That does not prove no strategy works, and it says nothing about versions we did not test. These are historical diagnostics, not validation under Testing Standard v2: the backtest harness predates that standard and has not been re-run to meet it.

General information only. It doesn't consider your objectives, finances or needs. Tickfloor holds no financial services licence and never places trades.

Short answers: the verdict and the rule, as questions

Does trading break of structure work?

None of these versions passed. crypto pairs −163.0 pts/yr vs the benchmark (unadjusted p=1.000, BH-adjusted q=1.000). None cleared our Benjamini-Hochberg q<0.10 bar once counted alongside every other rule we tested. That covers the versions, costs and benchmark described here, not every version of the rule. These are historical diagnostics, not validation under Testing Standard v2: the backtest harness predates that standard and has not been re-run to meet it.

What exact rule did Tickfloor test?

Swing points are 2-bar fractals. Go long after a higher high and higher low, short after a lower high and lower low. Coded mechanically, so it does not cover discretionary structure reads.

Is this financial advice?

No. This measures a publicly claimed strategy rule, not a recommendation. General information only, not personal advice.

See the full numbers on the Top 100 retail strategies family page, or the full method and every result.

Other rules we've tested

All the rules we tested