Squeeze Momentum: does it work?
None of these versions passed. Sample: Squeeze release, daily, 18 crypto pairs: 907 completed trades over 2017-08-18 to 2025-03-14 (7.6 years); Squeeze release, daily, 40 US stocks: 866 completed trades over 2016-09-15 to 2025-03-14 (8.5 years).
Squeeze Momentum flags when Bollinger Bands sit inside Keltner Channels, a low-volatility squeeze, and signals a move when it releases.
The rule we tested. Enter on the release of a Bollinger-inside-Keltner squeeze and exit when the momentum histogram crosses zero, on daily bars. Two versions: 18 crypto pairs and 40 US stocks.
- Squeeze release, daily, 18 crypto pairs (18 crypto pairs (BTCUSDT, BNBUSDT, XRPUSDT, ADAUSDT, …)), 2017-08-18 to 2025-03-14, costs 0.10% to 0.17% per side: −35.3 pts/yr vs the benchmark across 907 completed trades, unadjusted p=1.000, BH-adjusted q=1.000: did not beat the benchmark.
- Squeeze release, daily, 40 US stocks (40 US stocks (AAPL, NVDA, AMZN, GOOGL, …)), 2016-09-15 to 2025-03-14, costs 0.05% per side: −15.1 pts/yr vs the benchmark across 866 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
Squeeze release, daily, 18 crypto pairs
- Run id
- t100-squeeze-c, run 2026-10-06
- Frozen parameters
- timeframe 1d; n=20, bb=2, kc=1.5, shorts=true
- Data source
- vendor not recorded in the result file; data fingerprint sha256 e7098c5c15a8401c...
- 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
- 907 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/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-squeeze-c
- Full result file
- not published yet
Squeeze release, daily, 40 US stocks
- Run id
- t100-squeeze-s, run 2026-10-06
- Frozen parameters
- timeframe 1d; n=20, bb=2, kc=1.5, shorts=false
- Data source
- vendor not recorded in the result file; data fingerprint sha256 7b5251fa65d8de0e...
- Instruments and coverage
- 40 assets: AAPL, NVDA, AMZN, GOOGL, META, TSLA, JPM, V, UNH, XOM, JNJ, COST and 28 more (full list in the result file). 9 corrupt vendor bar-day(s) across 9 assets were dropped, never repaired
- Date window
- 2016-09-15 to 2025-03-14 (discovery cutoff 2025-03-15)
- Sample
- 866 completed trades over 2016-09-15 to 2025-03-14 (8.5 years)
- Cost rule
- 0.05% 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-squeeze-s
- Full result file
- not published yet
None of these versions passed. crypto pairs −35.3 pts/yr vs the benchmark (unadjusted p=1.000, BH-adjusted q=1.000); US stocks −15.1 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 versions above. Not tested: Other squeeze settings; intraday bars; a short side. 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 Squeeze Momentum indicator work?
None of these versions passed. crypto pairs −35.3 pts/yr vs the benchmark (unadjusted p=1.000, BH-adjusted q=1.000); US stocks −15.1 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?
Enter on the release of a Bollinger-inside-Keltner squeeze and exit when the momentum histogram crosses zero, on daily bars. Two versions: 18 crypto pairs and 40 US stocks.
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.