Guppy GMMA: does it work?
None of these versions passed. Sample: 662 completed trades over 2017-08-18 to 2025-03-14 (7.6 years).
Daryl Guppy's GMMA draws a ribbon of 12 EMAs, six short and six long. A fully ordered ribbon is read as a strong trend.
The rule we tested. Go long while all six short EMAs (3 to 15 days) sit above all six long EMAs (30 to 60 days), flat otherwise, on daily bars across 18 crypto pairs.
- Guppy multiple moving average: long while all 6 short EMAs (3-15) sit above all 6 long EMAs (30-60), crypto 1d x18 (18 crypto pairs (BTCUSDT, BNBUSDT, XRPUSDT, ADAUSDT, …)), 2017-08-18 to 2025-03-14, costs 0.10% to 0.17% per side: −3.7 pts/yr vs the benchmark across 662 completed trades, unadjusted p=1.000, BH-adjusted q=1.000: did not beat the benchmark.
See a full worked example of one of these reads (free, no account)
Receipt: parameters, data, window and result file
- Run id
- t1010-gmma-c, run 2026-10-10
- Frozen parameters
- timeframe 1d; short=[3,5,8,10,12,15], long=[30,35,40,45,50,60]
- Data source
- vendor not recorded in the result file; data fingerprint sha256 abf11f4667485ccf...
- Instruments and coverage
- 18 assets: BTCUSDT, BNBUSDT, XRPUSDT, ADAUSDT, DOGEUSDT, LTCUSDT, LINKUSDT, TRXUSDT, BCHUSDT, ATOMUSDT, ETCUSDT, DASHUSDT and 6 more (full list in the result file)
- Date window
- 2017-08-18 to 2025-03-14 (discovery cutoff 2025-03-15)
- Sample
- 662 completed trades over 2017-08-18 to 2025-03-14 (7.6 years)
- Cost rule
- 0.10% to 0.17% per side; charged on every change in position; 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 t1010-gmma-c
- Full result file
- not published yet
None of these versions passed. crypto pairs −3.7 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: Other EMA sets; stocks; discretionary ribbon reading such as compression and expansion. 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 the Guppy multiple moving average (GMMA) work?
None of these versions passed. crypto pairs −3.7 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?
Go long while all six short EMAs (3 to 15 days) sit above all six long EMAs (30 to 60 days), flat otherwise, on daily bars across 18 crypto pairs.
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 Tests 1010 family page, or the full method and every result.