Base System Performance
Label fires → price sweeps it → trade in the labeled direction → target GB minute reached
Sweep Rate
94.0%
of labels do get swept — median 7 min to sweep
Win Rate
51.5%
of swept setups that reached a decided outcome
Implied R:R
5.2 : 1
avg risk 2.17 pts vs avg win 11.29 pts
Max Losing Streak
21
consecutive losses, worst run in 18 years
The Bottom Line
The base mechanical signal — label, sweep, direction — wins 51.5% of the time. That's barely
above a coin flip. None of the system's stated edges (CE being the "strongest" entry, SE nodes being
"major," Ajay's 29→47 override, specific hours of day) showed a meaningfully higher win rate than the
baseline when tested across the full dataset. See the breakdowns below.
Win Rate By Entry Type
Does a CE hit (the page's "strongest entry signal") actually outperform a direct GB hit?
GB_EXACT vs GB_BUFFER vs CE vs SE
All four entry types land in the same narrow 51.3%–51.7% band — CE is not a meaningfully stronger signal than a direct hit, and SE nodes are not meaningfully stronger than regular GB numbers.
Win Rate By GB Number
Is any single GB number (0, 3, 11, 17, 29, 41, 47, 53, 59, 71) actually worth watching more than the others?
| GB Number | Sample Size | Win Rate |
|---|
| 0 | 64,226 | 51.0% |
| 3 | 86,632 | 51.4% |
| 11 | 89,511 | 51.8% |
| 17 | 86,407 | 51.7% |
| 29 | 94,021 | 51.2% |
| 41 | 88,567 | 51.6% |
| 47 | 85,372 | 51.4% |
| 53 | 84,292 | 51.4% |
| 71 | 34,573 | 52.2% |
Ajay's 29→47 Rule, Tested
94,021 setups fired at GB 29 targeting the overridden 47 minute (skipping the normal clock order's :41).
Win rate: 51.2% — statistically indistinguishable from every other GB number. The override does not
produce a measurable edge on its own.
Win Rate By Hour Of Day (NY Time)
Is there a session or hour where the system performs meaningfully better?
Every hour sits in the 50.1%–53.4% range. No hour stands out as a high-probability window — the system is flat across the full 24-hour session.
Points Captured — Ajay's Exact Time-Based Exit
Enter at the sweep candle's close, hold EXACTLY until the clock hits the target GB minute (no early exit, no price-based stop) — the real mechanical result, not a binary win/loss
Total Points, 18 Years
+103,327
across 1,463,243 trades with a reachable exit
Avg Points Per Trade
+0.07
essentially breakeven per individual trade
Avg Hold Time
27 min
average bars held from entry to target-minute exit
The Real Finding — Long/Short Are Not Symmetric
Breaking the +103,327 total down by direction: Long trades made +156,380 points
(+0.22 pts/trade avg) while short trades LOST −53,053 points (−0.07 pts/trade avg, net negative).
This strongly suggests the system's apparent "edge" is mostly NQ's 18-year bull drift showing through the
data, not a genuine bidirectional mechanical edge from the GB/CE/SE logic itself. A system with a real
edge should perform roughly symmetrically long and short.
Points Captured By Direction
Long Trades
724,693 trades
Total Points
+156,380.7
avg +0.22 pts/trade
Short Trades
738,550 trades
Total Points
−53,053.5
avg −0.07 pts/trade, net losing
Points Captured By GB Number
Which specific numbers actually produced points, long+short combined
| GB Number | Sample Size | Avg Pts/Trade | Total Points |
|---|
| 0 | 75,715 | −0.09 | −6,818.4 |
| 3 | 93,294 | −0.06 | −5,765.7 |
| 11 | 97,527 | +0.06 | +6,283.6 |
| 17 | 91,208 | +0.17 | +15,944.4 |
| 29 | 98,024 | +0.15 | +14,291.6 |
| 41 | 96,645 | +0.11 | +10,868.8 |
| 47 | 93,044 | +0.07 | +6,781.9 |
| 53 | 92,852 | +0.06 | +5,504.0 |
| 71 | 40,714 | −0.00 | −142.2 |
Standouts
GB 17 and GB 29 are the strongest performers (+15,944 and +14,292 points total). GB 0 and
GB 3 are net negative across the full dataset — the system's own documented SE/start nodes are not
where the points actually came from.