ICT Liquidity Sweep: does it work?
None of these versions passed. Sample: 14,402 completed trades over 2017-08-17 to 2025-03-14 (7.6 years).
In ICT-style teaching, price hunts the stops resting above yesterday's high or below yesterday's low, then reverses. Fading that sweep is sold as a core entry.
The rule we tested. An hourly close-based proxy of the sweep: a bar wicks through the previous day's high or low and closes back inside, then we fade it and hold 12 hours. It is a mechanical proxy, not a discretionary read of the chart, so it is not a test of every ICT sweep a trader might mark.
- ICT previous-day high/low sweep: fade a wick through yesterday's high/low that closes back inside, hold 12h, crypto 1h x8 (8 crypto pairs (BTCUSDT, BNBUSDT, XRPUSDT, ADAUSDT, …)), 2017-08-17 to 2025-03-14, costs 0.10% to 0.12% per side: −134.3 pts/yr vs the benchmark across 14,402 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-pdhl-sweep-h, run 2026-10-10
- Frozen parameters
- timeframe 1h; hold=12
- Data source
- vendor not recorded in the result file; data fingerprint sha256 b5fc9686b2133fe5...
- 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
- 14,402 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; 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-pdhl-sweep-h
- Full result file
- not published yet
None of these versions passed. crypto pairs −134.3 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: Intraday liquidity pools other than the previous day's high and low; discretionary confirmation; other holding periods. 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 ICT liquidity sweep work?
None of these versions passed. crypto pairs −134.3 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?
An hourly close-based proxy of the sweep: a bar wicks through the previous day's high or low and closes back inside, then we fade it and hold 12 hours. It is a mechanical proxy, not a discretionary read of the chart, so it is not a test of every ICT sweep a trader might mark.
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.