Raw Testing Clips Of 38 Trading Strategies: VIEW

Imagine you are a scientist trying to figure out if a new umbrella actually works or not.
If you only test it standing under a leaky tap in your bathroom, you might think it’s the greatest invention in history because you stayed dry.
But the moment you take that same umbrella into a storm, it turns inside out and leaves you soaking wet and questioning your life choices.
This is basically how many traders test their strategies.
We let a trading guru show us a strategy online.
Then, we find a small window where the market is behaving perfectly for that strategy and assume that we have finally found a working money printing machine.
But then the market changes its mood and the account vanishes like a magic trick.

So to show you the reality of trading strategies, I tested 38 strategies 200 times each.
First, I took 100 trades with each of them in an extremely good market; this is where the price was moving beautifully in one direction.
Then I took another 100 trades in an extremely bad, ranging market to see what happens.
I tested more than 7,000 trades in total!
But things get even more interesting.
You see, in the previous testing series on the Trading Rush channel, I have tested many different strategies in a market where the price was mostly trending up and down, but with a little bit of range, or slow or choppy movement in between, like when the trend was reversing, something like this.
But in this video, once we have filtered out this choppy market and specifically take 100 trades in the good, clean market and another 100 trades in the bad garbage market, we will have enough data to see how a strategy performs in different market conditions.
This way, we can select a strategy that performs best in not just one, but multiple market conditions.

For the testing, I used the Gold USD chart because it has been moving in an excellent uptrend even in the long run.
To make things even better, I added a 9-period exponential moving average on the 1 day timeframe.
If the price was clearly staying above it, something like this, I saw it as an excellent uptrend.
This is where I took trades for the extremely good market test.
If the price was not clearly staying above the 9 EMA, or it was choppy, ranging, or slow, something like this, then, I drew red boxes around it.
I took trades for the bad market test in these red boxes.
But all this good and bad market filtering was only done on the one-day timeframe.
The entry timeframe where I took trades with all the trading strategies was 30 minutes.
Since Gold has been moving in an excellent uptrend, I only took long trades on it with all the strategies.
And to identify the uptrend on the 30-minute entry timeframe, I also use the 200-period exponential moving average.
If the price was above it, then, and only then, I took a long trade.
In most setups, I set the stop loss below the recent swing low, something like this.
And I always set the profit target 1.5 times the stop-loss distance, or used a 1.5-to-1 reward-to-risk ratio.
Because that is the ratio we have found to be the best for trend strategies, according to the tested data on the Trading Rush channel.
So now, everything is ready to torture all these 38 trading strategies and see which one is the best.

Imagine you are throwing a ball straight up into the air.
At first, the ball moves very fast.
But as it gets higher, it starts to slow down.
For a tiny moment at the very top, it looks like it is floating.
It has lost its strength and momentum and is about to fall back down.
You see, momentum indicators are like sensors that tell us exactly when the price is losing its strength, and is ready to turn around.
One of the first momentum indicators that comes to mind is the RSI indicator.
Its value moves between 100 and 0, and it shows when the price has moved too high or too low.
The normal version of the RSI comes with levels of 70 and above as the overbought zones and levels of 30 and below as the oversold zone.
When there is an uptrend going on, such as the price staying above the 200 EMA, many traders take a long entry when the RSI value comes out of the oversold zone and crosses above the 30 level.
It looks something like this, and the stop loss goes below the swing low.
But here’s a problem. In the good market test, with this strategy, I could only find 52 trades in around 25 years of 30 minute timeframe data.
So this strategy doesn’t give enough entry points in an extremely good market for us to make enough money.
But out of all the trades it did manage to find, it got a 59% win rate.
This is not bad for a 1.5 to 1 reward risk ratio.
The profit graph is nicely moving in the upward direction.
When I tested the same RSI strategy a few years ago in a mostly good trending market, it had around a 49% win rate.
So, it increased its win rate by around 10 points in the extremely good market.
But in the extremely bad, ranging, choppy, and slow market, this strategy only got a 40% win rate, which is actually the breakeven win rate of the 1.5 to 1 reward-risk ratio, and the profit graph also looked more flat.
So, in the extremely bad market conditions, the RSI doesn’t make any profit, but it doesn’t continuously lose money either.
I mean, some trading strategies’ profit graphs continuously move in the downward direction as you will see soon.
At least this one is staying flat, even in the worst market conditions.
But normally, before showing the win rates, I show testing clips like this.
So you can see exactly how each trade was taken.
But since there are 38 strategies tested 200 times each, that is more than 7,000 trades in total.
So, putting all those clips in this video will make this video way too long, more than the length of all the Fast and Furious movies combined.
So instead, I’ve made a separate, long compilation video of all the testing clips. This way, you can watch the individual trades that I’ve taken if you want.
The link for that is in the description below.
But in this video, I will go through the win rates as fast as possible and show you what happened and what I learned.

So things get really interesting with the next RSI strategy.
Normally, the RSI indicator comes with a default length setting of 14.
But there is a strategy that uses an RSI length of 50.
This makes the RSI less volatile, so it will move up and down slowly.
In this strategy, when the price is above the 200 EMA, people wait for the RSI to go below the middle 50 level and then cross back up again, something like this.
This makes sure that there was a decent-sized downward move in this uptrend before we take a long entry, something like this.
When I tested this strategy in an extremely good market, it had a massive 68 percent win rate, and the profit graph went upward.
But in the previous mostly good market test, it only had a 45% win rate.
So, it had a massive win rate jump from 45 to 68 percent.
But in non-trending, garbage market conditions, the win rate had a massive drop to 38 percent, which is just below the 40% break-even point.
The profit graph is definitely not moving in an upward direction.
But you may have seen some trading gurus recommend using extreme levels of the RSI.
Instead of 70 and 30 overbought and oversold levels, some trading gurus recommend using 80 and 20 levels instead.
When the RSI line goes below the 20 level and crosses back up again, traders take a long entry and set the stop loss at the swing low.
However, if you try to use a 200-period moving average with this strategy, you will almost never get an entry point because this extreme oversold scenario usually happens after a big pullback that is on the other side of the moving average.
But even though this strategy doesn’t use the 200 EMA, in extremely good market conditions, it still didn’t give enough entry points.
It only found about 10 trades in around 25 years of data, though it got a high 70% win rate.
But that is unreliable, and a high win rate is useless if it doesn’t give enough opportunities to make money.
This happened because, in an extremely good market, a big pullback like this rarely happens.
But in the mostly trending market, it did manage to find 100 trades but only got around a 46% win rate.
So overall, this strategy makes money but is average compared to other trading strategies.
But in the extremely bad market, it did manage to give enough opportunities and got around a 39% win rate, which is around the break-even point.
This is actually a good thing; it means that even in extremely bad market conditions, this strategy has a lower probability of blowing up the account.

The next indicator is pretty interesting.
It is basically a copy of the famous MACD indicator.
It is supposed to be faster at giving the crossovers.
It’s called the MACD zero-lag.
When the blue MACD line crosses above the orange signal line, and that crossover happens below the MACD zero value, then traders take a long position and set the stop loss below the recent swing low, something like this.
When I tested this strategy in extremely good market conditions, it had a nice 59% win rate.
The profit graph was moving nicely in the upward direction.
The normal MACD indicator also had around a 60% win rate in the extremely good market.
So this MACD zero-lag indicator didn’t improve anything by giving entry points faster.
But things get really strange.
You see, in the extremely bad market conditions, this strategy got a 42% win rate, which is around the 40% breakeven point.
But in the previous mostly good trending market test, the MACD zero-lag indicator literally had the worst win rate out of all the strategies.
Funny how it got a really nice win rate in the extremely good market and didn’t even lose money in the extremely bad market, but then somehow lost a lot of money and got the worst win rate in the mostly trending market.
How is the mostly trending market win rate… worse than the extremely bad market win rate?
What I think is happening in the extremely good trending market is that the price moves really strongly in one direction and gives a little bit of pullbacks, something like this.
So, when we use a fast-reacting indicator like the MACD zero lag, it manages to capture the end of these small pullbacks pretty accurately.
But in the mostly good trending market, the price can often give a bigger pullback.
In this bigger pullback, a fast-reacting indicator such as the MACD zero-lag can give an entry point at every small reversal.
These small reversals end up being false entry points before the real trend continuation.
So it loses trades before catching the winning one, which is why the win rate drops significantly.
But in the ranging markets, the price often makes multiple reversal points and doesn’t move significantly in one direction like a big pullback.
So, many of these zero-lag entry points end up being more random.
The probability of random trades in a ranging, flat market is breakeven.
That’s why the MACD zero-lag win rate was also around the breakeven point.
But that’s just a theory, a market movement theory based on what I saw during testing.
On the other hand, stochastic is another popular momentum indicator that swings between the 0 and 100 values, much like the RSI indicator.
However, it has two lines that create a crossover from time to time.
On this chart, the blue stochastic line moves faster than the orange line.
So, what many traders do is buy when the blue line crosses above the orange line, and that happens below the 20 value, like this.
When I tested it in extremely good market conditions, it got a 50% win rate, which did make a decent profit, as you can see in the profit graph.
But compared to the MACD zero-lag we just saw, or the extreme RSI’s win rate, which was around 70%, a 50% win rate in extremely good market conditions feels kinda low.
In the previous mostly trending market test, Stochastic only had around a breakeven win rate.
So, it couldn’t even make good money.
At least this 50% win rate in the extremely good market was an improvement.
But then, in the extremely bad market conditions, it got around a breakeven win rate.
So basically, this stochastic indicator was mediocre in all market conditions.
There is no point in using it when we have much better indicators with a higher win rate.
But if you want to use something awesome, then you might like the Awesome Oscillator.
You see, when the histogram of this indicator crosses above the zero value, something like this, people take a long entry and set the stop loss below the recent swing low.
When I tested it in the extremely good market, it had a 58% win rate, which is good.
But in the extremely bad market conditions, the win rate crashed to 32%, which is in the account-destroying territory.
The profit graph is pretty much going down in a straight line.
But in the previous mostly trending market test, it only had a 42 percent win rate, so it was basically around the breakeven point.
In other words, this strategy can’t handle a mostly trending market, and fails to make good money in 2 out of 3 market conditions.
That isn’t great, but there is another version of the Awesome Oscillator strategy.
Basically, people buy when the histogram goes below the zero value, something like this, and then three green bars appear back-to-back for the first time.
After the third green bar, they buy, and set the stop loss below the recent swing low.
But in the extremely good market, it only got a 55% win rate, which is slightly lower than the 58% win rate the previous awesome oscillator strategy got.
The thing is that in the extremely bad market conditions, this “awesome” strategy too got a really low 34% win rate, and the profit graph is continuously going in a downward direction like a crash.
But when I tested this in the mostly good market last time, it had a 45% win rate.
It made money, but slowly.
So overall, the awesome indicator is not that awesome compared to other strategies.
But then there is the CMO indicator, which looks like an RSI.
When the CMO line crosses above the negative 50 level, traders like to buy.
They set the stop loss below the swing low, something like this.
But in the extremely good market conditions, this indicator only got a 40% win rate, which is the breakeven point.
So, this indicator can’t even make money in perfect market conditions, which is just embarrassing.
But in the bad market conditions, it got a 30% win rate, which is one of the worst results we have seen so far.
You will definitely blow up your account with this indicator.
But in the previous mostly trending market test, it only had a 43% win rate, once again around the breakeven point.
So this indicator just sucks.
It doesn’t even make money in the extremely good market, it doesn’t make money in the mostly trending market, and it will definitely blow up your account in the bad market.
So there is no point in using this indicator in any market condition.
But things get really interesting because this indicator also has another strategy that people like to use.
Basically, when the CMO line crosses above the middle line, something like this, people take a long entry.
This actually improved the win rate massively; it got a 67% win rate, and the profit graph is now strongly moving in an upward direction.
I saw a similar improvement in the mostly trending market last time.
The win rate went from 43 percent to 51 percent by simply changing how I entered the trade with the same indicator.
It improved the win rate in the extremely bad market conditions as well.
Last time it had a 30% win rate; now it had around a breakeven 40% win rate.
The profit graph is no longer continuously moving in a downward direction.
This CMO strategy is much better across different market conditions, unlike its useless brother.
Then there is William with his Percent R indicator, which basically looks like the RSI, and the strategy is also very similar.
The price moves into the oversold area, which in this case is below minus 80.
Then, people wait for the percent R indicator to cross above the negative 80 level, something like this.
Then they take a long entry and set the stop loss below the recent swing low.
But in the extremely good market conditions, it only got a 47 percent win rate, which is not that good.
For comparison, some strategies got a 60 to 70 percent win rate.
But in the bad market condition, it got a 30% win rate, which is just horrible.
And in the previous mostly trending market test, the win rate was around 44 percent.
So basically, since this indicator couldn’t even cross the 50% win rate mark in the extremely good market or any market condition, you can say this indicator is barely making good money.
The win rate is profitable but really low compared to other strategies!
Then there is the TRIX indicator, which is one of the simplest indicators you will ever see.
When the TRIX value crosses above the zero line, something like this, traders will take a long trade and set the stop loss below the recent swing low.
But in the extremely good market conditions, it got a nice 63 percent win rate.
The profit graph is consistently moving in an upward direction.
But in the previous mostly trending market test, TRIX had a 47% win rate.
And in the extremely bad market conditions, it got a 36% win rate.
So overall, this indicator is decent.
It managed to make a good profit in the extremely good and mostly trending markets.
It is not the best or the highest win rate indicator, but it is decent.
But then PPO is a simple indicator where traders buy when the line crosses above the zero value, something like this.
And in the extremely good market, it did manage to be profitable with a 56% win rate.
In the previous mostly trending market, it was profitable as well with a 48% win rate.
But in the ranging, choppy, and slow market conditions, it only had a 34% win rate and has the potential to blow up your account.
But still, it managed to make decent money in mostly trending and extremely good market conditions.
Performing nicely in two out of three market conditions is much better than some of the other strategies we have seen so far.
On the other hand, do you like fish?
Fisher Transform Indicator is very similar to the MACD strategy.
On this chart, the blue line is the Fisher line, and when it crosses above the trigger line and that crossover happens below the zero value, then traders take a long entry.
The stop loss goes below the recent swing low, something like this.
But when I tested it in the extremely good market, it only had a 49% win rate.
I mean, it did make money, but other strategies got a win rate as high as 70 percent.
So, this 49% win rate is kind of low for the extremely good market conditions.
But then again, when I tested it in the mostly trending market last time, it had a relatively low win rate as well, around the breakeven point.
But then in the bad market conditions, it had a 36% win rate.
So, maybe this indicator is just mediocre in most market conditions.
Then there is the RVI indicator, which gives really interesting results because this indicator also has two strategies that give completely different win rates.
In the first strategy, you basically enter when the green RVI line crosses above the red signal line, but that crossover has to happen below the zero value, something like this.
And in the second strategy, entry is taken when the same crossover happens above the zero line, something like this.
Basically, the difference is that when the crossover happens below the zero line, the pullback is usually big, and the crossover above the zero line is designed to catch strong trends where the pullback is smaller.
But when I tested it to see which is better, the RVI strategy where the entry was taken below the zero line got a 56 percent win rate in the extremely good market.
But suprisingly, entry above the zero line got a massive 72% win rate, and the profit graph is going really strongly in the upward direction.
So, in extremely strong trending markets, buying at crossovers above the zero line is much better than buying below it.
I had a similar experience in the previous mostly trending market test as well.
Buying below the zero line performed worse than buying above the zero line.
But still, in the mostly trending market, both RVI strategies got low to mediocre win rates, especially compared to other strategies.
As for the ranging, choppy, and slow market conditions, buying below the zero line got a horrible 31% win rate, but buying above the zero line got a breakeven 40% win rate.
So, overall, buying at crossovers above the zero line consistently had a massive improvement in the win rate and the profit graph.
That’s very interesting.

Then there is the ADX DMI indicator, which measures the strength of a trend with its two directional lines.
It is like watching two wrestlers: one is pushing down, and one is pushing up.
On this chart, the blue line is called the positive line, and the orange line is the negative line.
When the blue line crosses above the negative line, something like this, then people take a long entry, and the stop loss goes below the recent swing low.
When I tested this, it had a nice 59% win rate in extremely good market conditions.
In the previous mostly good market test, it only had a 35% win rate, which is below the break-even point.
But then, in the ranging, choppy, and slow markets, the win rate dropped to 30%.
So, this strategy only makes money in extremely good market conditions; it completely sucks in mostly trending and ranging markets.
Then there is Chaikin Money Flow.
And you might think, “This will flow money into your pockets.”
People take a long entry, when this money flow line crosses above the zero value, something like this.
In extremely good market conditions, it did flow money into the pocket by giving a 56% win rate.
It is not the highest win rate we have seen. But the profit graph is moving in an upward direction, like an uptrend.
But maybe a mediocre win rate is expected because it also had a relatively low win rate in the previous mostly trending market test.
It only had a 43% win rate when there were strategies getting 50% and higher win rates in the same market conditions.
But then, in the bad, ranging, and choppy markets, the profit graph was pretty much moving sideways.
At least it was not going continuously in a downward direction, like a crash.
Overall, this indicator is mediocre.
But then, there is its long-distance cousin, the Chaikin Oscillator.
The last name is different, but they look pretty much the same.
The strategy says to buy when the Chaikin line crosses above the zero value, something like this.
Surprisingly, this long-distance cousin got a way higher 67% win rate in the same extremely good market.
The profit graph is going in an upward direction much better.
In the previous mostly trending market test, this brother was still performing better with a 47% win rate.
The other brother only had a 43% win rate.
But in the extremely bad, ranging, and choppy markets, the Oscillating brother performed worse with a 32% win rate.
It will probably blow up the account with its fast downward-moving profit graph.
Then there is an indicator with a completely childish name called Beep Boop.
The creator of this indicator must be a big dum-dum.
Oh wait, the creator is me.
I made this indicator a while back for a video to catch really strong trends.
In the extremely good market, it did get a high 67% win rate, and the profit graph is strongly moving in an upward direction.
So, my funny-named indicator that was designed to catch strong trends, actually works in the strong trends.
In the previous mostly trending market test, it had a 48% win rate.
But in the bad, ranging, and choppy markets, the win rate dropped to 30%.
So, even my own creations can’t escape the curse of bad, choppy markets.
But next is the Fractal Indicator, which basically adds arrows above and below the price, something like this.
In an uptrend, when an up arrow appears above a candle, you wait for the price to go above that candle’s high, something like this.
And then, traders take a long trade.
The stop loss goes below the recent swing low, which, in many cases, is near the downward-pointing arrow, something like this.
This is basically a trend breakout strategy.
You are buying when the price breaks the previous swing high of the trend.
When I tested it in an extremely good market, it got a good 62% win rate, and the profit graph was nicely going in an upward direction.
So, trading breakouts in the direction of the trend works pretty well in an extremely good market.
In the mostly good trending market, breakouts in the trend direction performed pretty nicely as well.
The win rate was around 48%, which is not the highest, but it was definitely profitable, especially when you consider the trend was not extremely strong.
But in the extremely bad, choppy markets, this fractal strategy got a 39% win rate, which is around the break-even point.
But the profit graph was basically moving in a downward direction for the most part, and it only went near the break-even point near the end.
That last upward push and winning back-to-back, could be just getting lucky with a strong short term move.
But the rest of the time, the profit graph was pretty much continuously moving in a downward direction, which is not a good sign.
Still, this fractal strategy works in two out of three market conditions, which is good.
But then there is the Schaff Trend Cycle, which is one of the nicest-looking indicators out there.
When this cycle value crosses above the 20 level like this, traders take an entry with a stop loss below the recent swing low.
It got a really nice 66% win rate in extremely good market conditions.
The profit graph is pretty much going up in a straight line.
In the previous mostly good market test, this was a profitable indicator as well, with a 50% win rate.
Only a few indicators have gotten above a 50% win rate in the previous mostly trending market tests.
But in the ranging, choppy markets, the win rate was around 37%, which is not that low compared to other strategies.
But the profit graph is moving in a downward direction, like a slow downtrend.
Other than that, it’s a really good indicator in two out of three market conditions.

You know how in almost all strategies, we have been using a moving average to find the trend direction.
But there are some really interesting strategies that use moving averages directly to enter trades.
One of the popular ones is the golden cross strategy, where you buy when the 50-period moving average crosses above the 200-period moving average, something like this.
When I tested it in a previous video, it did get a nice 76 percent win rate in extremely good conditions, but I was only able to find around 78 trades in about 25 years of data.
So, the golden cross gives fewer entry points than other strategies.
But in the mostly trending market, it got a 42% win rate, which is just above the breakeven point.
It barely made a profit.
In the bad market conditions, it got a 38% win rate, which is around the breakeven point, and the profit graph is moving in a downward direction.
So, the golden cross only worked nicely in one out of three scenarios, and when it worked, it gave very few entry points.
But that was with the basic simple moving averages; nowadays, we have many different types of moving averages, such as weighted, DEMA, and TEMA.
So first, I tried the weighted moving average, where we buy when the 50 weighted average crosses above the 200 weighted average, and the stop loss goes below the crossover.
In an extremely good market, it got a 62 percent win rate, which is lower than the normal golden cross rate, but at least it gives more entry points.
This time, in the mostly trending market, the weighted golden cross gave a higher rate of 48 percent than the normal golden cross.
The normal one only had a 42% win rate.
The most interesting thing is that in extremely bad market conditions, this is one of those rare strategies that managed to make a good profit with a 48% win rate.
Where almost all other strategies lost money like a crash, this strategy’s profit graph was moving in an upward direction like an uptrend.
But then there is the golden cross where the 50 DEMA crosses above the 200 DEMA moving average.
In an extremely good market, it got a 58% win rate, which is nice, but it is still not as high as the normal golden cross’s 76% win rate.
In the previous mostly trending market test, it had a 42% win rate.
But in bad ranging market conditions, it got a worse 32 percent win rate.
So, it definitely doesn’t perform better than the normal golden cross in any market condition.
Then there is the TEMA golden cross, which is basically DEMA’s big brother, but this moving average is so fast and sticks to the price so closely that I had to use a normal 200 EMA for the trend direction.
In an extremely good market, it only got a 55% win rate.
In the mostly trending market, it had a 37% win rate
But in extremely ranging, choppy market conditions, it had a horrible 33% win rate.
So, it definitely sucks too compared to the normal golden cross.
But maybe I set the stop loss too tight.
I mean, these two moving averages are sticking too close to the price, so even market noise can trigger this nearby stoploss.
So, I set the stoploss a bit wider, below the recent swing low, something like this.
Because of that, in the extremely good market, the win rate improved massively to 69 percent, and now the profit graph is moving in an upward direction.
But while the profit looks like a straight line, the win rate is still not higher than the golden cross.
In the previous mostly trending market, it had a 43% win rate.
But then, in ranging choppy markets, the win rate was literally one of the worst I have seen in this testing series.
It dropped to a horrible 28 percent, and the profit graph is basically a continuous, strong downtrend.
So, in extreme market conditions, none of the moving averages could beat the classic 50 and 200 simple moving average golden crossover.
But that’s only in terms of win rate. When it comes to profit amount and number of trades, all other moving averages gave more entry opportunities, which can result in a higher profit amount in the long run.
But in extremely bad and mostly trending market conditions, the normal golden cross was beaten by the weighted moving average crossover.
But not only that, the weighted moving average crossover strategy was so good, that it performed better than most strategies and made money even in extremely bad market conditions.

But outside the Golden Cross, there is the Hull Moving Average strategy.
Here, the 100 period Hull crosses above the 200 SMA, something like this.
The stop loss goes below the crossover.
In the extremely good trending market, it did get a really nice 68% win rate, but it didn’t give enough entry points.
I only found 91 trades in around 25 years of 30-minute time frame data.
The profit graph is nicely moving in the upward direction, though.
But the most interesting thing is that in the previous, mostly trending market test, it only had a 42 percent win rate.
So, this is one of the strategies that had a massive improvement in the win rate just because of the market conditions.
But in the extremely bad ranging markets, it got a break-even 40% win rate.
So, even though this strategy only made money in one out of three market conditions, it didn’t lose big money in any of them.
But then there is the McGinley Dynamic moving average.
Traders take a long trade when the 9-period McGinley Dynamic crosses above the 21-period McGinley Dynamic, like this.
The stop loss is below the recent swing low.
In the extremely good market, it did give a good 60% win rate, but in the previous, mostly trending market test, it only had a 43% win rate.
So, a 60% win rate is a huge improvement.
But in the bad ranging markets, it had one of the worst win rates at 26%.
So, when you consider it only makes good money in one out of three market conditions, there is not really a point in using this moving average strategy compared to other, better strategies.
But the next moving average strategy is really unique.
You see, if you take a 20-period simple moving average and make it use the candles’ high values to calculate the average,
and then you take another 20-period simple moving average but this time make it use the low values of the candles,
you then get a channel like this.
In an uptrend, when a candle completely opens and closes above the channel, something like this, traders take a long trade and set the stop below the recent swing low.
This moving average channel strategy had one of the highest win rate of 73% in the extremely good market.
In the mostly trending market, it had a 48% win rate, which was decent enough.
But in the choppy markets, it sucks with a 33% win rate, and the profit graph looks like it is moving in a downtrend.
But there is a similar-looking strategy called the Keltner Channel, where when a candle completely opens and closes above the channel, something like this, and the stoploss goes below the recent swing low.
And this had a high 68% win rate in the extremely good market.
The mostly trending market win rate was decent too, at around 49%, just like the moving average channel.
But this Keltner Channel failed completely in the ranging, choppy markets with a 36% win rate, just like the moving average channel.
The profit graph is moving in a downward direction as well.

Now, it’s time for the couples strategies.
Some traders like to combine multiple popular indicators and think that the win rate will increase.
For example, if the stochastic indicator enters the oversold zone and then the MACD gives a long crossover, traders see it as double confirmation to enter a long trade.
The stop loss goes below the recent swing low.
However, in an extremely good trending market, it only achieved a 59 percent win rate.
I mean, it did make good money, but the MACD strategy on its own had around a 60 percent win rate.
So, this combination didn’t increase the win rate at all.
But in a mostly trending market, the combination couldn’t beat the standalone win rates either.
It only achieved a 53% win rate, while the MACD on its own had a 60% win rate there as well.
But in bad ranging markets, the win rate was horrible as well, at 33%.
So overall, the stochastic and MACD combination didn’t improve the win rate at all in any market condition.
But then, there is the RSI and ADX combination.
You take a long trade when the RSI gives a breakout above the 70 level, but only if the ADX value is also 25 or above.
This basically ensures a strong upward move and a strong buying interest.
But in this strategy, the swing low can be really far. So, the stoploss is set below the 21 EMA, like this.
But in an extremely good market, the win rate was only 53%, which is lower than many other standalone strategies we have seen in the same good market condition.
In a mostly trending market, this combination straight up sucked and lost money with a 36% win rate.
But in ranging, choppy markets, this combination managed to make a small profit with its 43 percent win rate.
But then, there is the RSI with the Supertrend indicator,
which basically says to buy when the RSI gives a breakout above the 70 level, indicating strong buying interest.
The entry is only taken if the Supertrend line is showing a green uptrend as well.
The stop loss goes below the trend line.
In an extremely good trending market, it did manage to get a really high 69% win rate.
So, this combination is not that bad.
But in a mostly trending market, it had a 45% win rate.
So it didn’t really improve the standalone win rates.
But in extremely bad, ranging, choppy markets, it did manage to make a profit with a 44% win rate and performed better overall.
But then, there is the RSI combined with the Bollinger Bands indicator.
Traders take a long trade when the RSI has been in an oversold zone recently and then the price crosses above the middle Bollinger Band, something like this.
The stop loss is placed below the recent swing low.
This combination did maintain a high 65% win rate in an extremely good market, but it only found 43 trades in about 25 years of data.
So even though it makes money, it is kind of useless compared to other strategies.
But in a mostly trending market, it straight up made a loss with a 35% win rate, so it sucked there too.
But the sucking continues in the extremely bad market as well, with a 31% win rate.
On top of that, it gave fewer entry points too.
So this RSI with Bollinger combination completely sucks in two out of three scenarios.
But then, there is the “beep boop” combined with the Ichimoku Cloud.
The “beep boop” indicator is based on the MACD and strong trends.
So this combination is also like combining the MACD with the Ichimoku Cloud indicator.
The entry is when the first Beep Boop bar appears while the price is above the green Ichimoku Cloud and also above the baseline of the Ichimoku Cloud.
The stop loss goes below the baseline, something like this.
But if that sounded confusing, don’t worry; you don’t have to remember this because it didn’t perform well.
Even in extremely good market conditions, it was not that good.
The mostly trending market was not better either.
And in the extremely bad market, it achieved a win rate just below the breakeven point.
So overall, there is no point in combining the MACD with the Ichimoku Cloud like this.
But then, there is the Alligator indicator combined with the “beep boop” or MACD indicator.
It’s a bit funny that we risk our hard-earned money on things called an “Alligator” and “beep boop.”
But you see, the Alligator indicator has three lines called the lips, teeth, and jaw.
When these lines are in this order from the top, lips, teeth, and jaw, traders take a long entry when the beep boop or MACD gives a long crossover.
The stop loss goes below the recent swing low.
But in the extremely trending market, it did manage to make a profit, but the win rate was not that high compared to standalone strategies.
You see, on its own, the Beep Boop had a 67% win rate in the same market condition!
But in the mostly trending market, the win rate was not high either.
And in the extremely bad market, it had around a breakeven win rate.
But then traders combine the MACD with the Supertrend indicator as well.
The long entry is when the MACD gives a long crossover or the Beep Boop gives a green bar, and the Supertrend is showing a green uptrend.
In the extremely good market, this combination got a 57 percent win rate, but didn’t improve the standalone win rates.
But in the mostly trending market, the win rate was low too.
And in the extremely bad market, the win rate was basically breakeven.
So overall, there is no point in combining the MACD with the Supertrend indicator.
But then, there is the Ichimoku Cloud with the RSI indicator.
Traders take a long entry when the RSI gives a breakout above the 70 level and only if the Ichimoku Cloud is showing a green cloud, which basically means an uptrend.
The stop loss goes below the recent swing low in an extremely good trending market.
But in extremely good markets, the win rate was only 55%, which is not that high compared to other standalone strategies.
In a mostly trending market, the win rate was 49%, which was decent, but you are still better off with a standalone strategy.
But in ranging, bad markets, the win rate just dropped to 28%, and the profit graph is moving straight down.

Normally, after testing a strategy, I rate it and give it a TR score.
This way, we can compare each strategy in different categories and see which one is best overall.
But since there are a lot of strategies tested in this video, and now that the score list is really long, I will quickly go through the top strategies of different market conditions.
But to see the full TR score and ratings of all strategies, you can visit the official Trading Rush website.
The link is in the description.
But in a mostly good trending market, MACD still holds first place in the win rate and quality of trades categories.
It also got the highest TR score out of all the strategies.
In an extremely good trending market, the Bollinger Bands %B indicator holds the highest win rate, but the reliability of that strategy and the quality of trades are not the highest.
When we sort the table by TR score, the Beep Boop indicator comes to the top with the highest TR score.
This indicator is basically MACD combined with the moving average to only give entry points in really strong trends.
So it not only gives one of the highest win rates, but the quality of those trades is also really nice.
But the other reason it got a higher score is how easy it is to use.
It is just red and green bars that appear and disappear nicely.
The Beep Boop indicator is completely free, by the way. You can find it on the official Trading Rush website.
But in a mostly trending market, the MACD indicator takes the lead.
And in an extremely good trending market, a version of the MACD indicator takes the lead.
So, it looks like MACD is the best indicator when it comes to mostly trending and extremely trending markets.
But in extremely bad market conditions, it is nowhere near the top.
In fact, most strategies lost money or gave around a breakeven win rate here.
There were some strategies that were just above the breakeven win rate, but their reliability and quality of trades were not that good.
So, they got a lower score in the win rate category.
The only strategy that got a relatively high score and made a nice profit was the weighted Golden Cross strategy.
The profit graph was moving more consistently in an upward direction, and overall, it was simply the best.
You see, this weighted golden cross made good money in the extremely good market, made relatively good money in the mostly trending market, and also made good money in extremely bad market conditions.
I would say it’s because it gives entry points far away from each other.
It doesn’t really spam trades like many other strategies but still gives enough entry points to make good money.
So, pretty good overall!
To see how I made 100% profit in a year and to see live trade setups that made profits in the live market in the long run, support Trading Rush on Patreon.
It’s basically my current strategies applied in the live market and proof of if they work or not.
The link is in the description.
Thanks for watching.