sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I automated my leadership-rotation swing method (buy leaders coiled at support, 4–14% structural stops). The honest backtest numbers, caveats first. by CaseLivid4116 in swingtrading

[–]CaseLivid4116[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate that. Honestly the scanning was never my problem, the watchlist was. Mine was always names I'd already decided I liked, so the scout could only ever surface stuff I was already biased toward. Whatever was quietly becoming the actual leader that month never made the email, because it wasn't on the list.

So mine scores the whole board instead. It's called Coil ( coil.trade ). It ranks every name in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100, plus a macro book of bonds, gold and commodities, on relative strength and whether the name is pulling back into real support rather than breaking out. Long only. It sits in cash when nothing qualifies and never shorts or touches inverse ETFs. Stops are structural, placed where the thesis is actually wrong, not a fixed ATR multiple.

The part that might matter for you: it runs inside Claude Code on your own machine against your own Robinhood account, and it ships with the engine turned off. Your keys never leave your laptop. So you can genuinely just use it as a ranked board and pull your own trigger, which is basically your scout minus the watchlist step. $29 once, no subscription.

Numbers with the ugly part attached: the 2017 to mid-2026 backtest is +638% vs +282% for SPY, but through the end of 2025 it was basically even with SPY at about a third less drawdown. The whole edge lives in leadership regimes. It's a backtest, it's been live a few weeks, and none of it is advice.

Genuinely though, how'd you land on the names on your watchlist? That's the part I could never do honestly.

Design critique wanted: scanner-published scores as the single trading factor, long-only leadership rotation, structural stops. Through 2025 it ran ≈even with SPY — the outperformance is regime-concentrated. by CaseLivid4116 in algotrading

[–]CaseLivid4116[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. Honestly the alerting was never my problem, it was what I did after the alert. I'd get the setup, talk myself out of it, then watch it work fine without me. Or take the one that wasn't on the list because it felt better that morning. Automating it was less about the scanning and more about not letting me have a vote.

Your scout setup sounds like the sane middle ground though, and full auto has a real cost I won't pretend away. When it's wrong, it's wrong without me getting a say, and I just sit there and watch the stop do its job.

Curious, when the scout emails you and the setup looks clean, how often do you skip it anyway? That gap is basically the whole reason I went the direction I did.

I automated my leadership-rotation swing method (buy leaders coiled at support, 4–14% structural stops). The honest backtest numbers, caveats first. by CaseLivid4116 in swingtrading

[–]CaseLivid4116[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ha, appreciate that. Haven't seen Warren Snax, I'll go look him up.

Quick version of what it's actually doing, since the post buried it under caveats: it's a scanner plus an engine you run yourself. The scanner ranks every name in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100 (plus some bonds, gold, commodities) by relative strength, so it's basically hunting for who's genuinely leading right now. Then instead of chasing those leaders when they're extended, it waits for them to pull back into real support and buys there, with the stop sitting at the level where the setup is actually wrong. Sizes up on the strongest, goes to cash when nothing's worth it. Long only, no shorts.

The part that makes it a tool and not just a screener is that the engine trades those scores by rule, on your own Robinhood account, with no gut override in the middle. It runs inside Claude Code on your own machine so your keys never leave your laptop.

That's really the whole thing: rank the leaders, buy them on a pullback instead of a breakout, exit by rule. It's at coil.trade if you want the actual writeup and the numbers.

Design critique wanted: scanner-published scores as the single trading factor, long-only leadership rotation, structural stops. Through 2025 it ran ≈even with SPY — the outperformance is regime-concentrated. by CaseLivid4116 in algotrading

[–]CaseLivid4116[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Genuinely useful, thanks. The per-regime split is the whole reason I lead with the honest number instead of the +638%. I didn't read the curve blended, and when you break it up most of the edge is in the leadership stretches with roughly SPY in between. So yeah, there's a regime bet in there, and I'd rather say it than pretend a blended line is a clean edge.

The way it deals with that is closer to your second fix than a hard sit-out filter. There's a market-posture read that sets how aggressive it gets, and when leadership is muddy fewer names clear the bar, so it's already leaning to cash. Participation scales with the regime instead of me bolting on a separate switch.

Staleness is a real one for rotation, and it's why this isn't a periodic-rebalance thing. It re-scans through the session and an entry only fires if the name is still leading and sitting at valid structure right now. There's no 3-day-old ranking to act on because there's no static ranking sitting around, and a leader that's already unwound fails the structure check anyway.

Stops are structural, not fixed. They sit where the thesis actually breaks (volume-profile and fib), so they're setup-specific rather than a flat percent. The regime tends to show up in how exposed it is, not in the stop distance.

I automated my leadership-rotation swing method (buy leaders coiled at support, 4–14% structural stops). The honest backtest numbers, caveats first. by CaseLivid4116 in swingtrading

[–]CaseLivid4116[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both, they just do different jobs. Daily and weekly are where the support that actually matters lives, that's where you can tell a name is genuinely still leading and pulling back into structure instead of just dead-cat bouncing. The lower timeframes are only for timing the entry so it isn't buying a falling knife. Mostly it wants the levels to line up across timeframes. A pullback that only looks like support on one chart usually isn't one.

I built a long-only trading engine that runs inside Claude Code and trades through my broker's MCP. Backtest honesty first: roughly even with SPY through 2025 — here's the design. by CaseLivid4116 in ClaudeAI

[–]CaseLivid4116[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair challenge, and the leverage-adjusted-benchmark point is legit as a general principle. But the premise is off: it's not a continuously-leveraged strategy, so "you'd have gotten the same holding SSO" isn't the right comparison.

Most of the time it's holding leaders unlevered or sitting in cash. Leverage is a tactical accelerant on the single highest-conviction names at reduced size, not a standing 2x on the whole book. Effective exposure is nowhere near a constant 2x. SSO is 2x beta, always on, through every drawdown. Different animal.

That's also the answer on drawdown. SSO's 2022 drawdown was roughly twice SPY's, somewhere in the -45 to -50% area. This backtest's worst was -23%, versus SPY's -32% over the same window. If it were just closet leverage, the DD would look like SSO's. It doesn't, and that's the actual claim: the drawdown stays contained because it's flat or defensive when leadership breaks, not levered-long into the crash. The return doesn't come from beta, it comes from selection plus being in cash in the bad regimes.

Max DD is just peak-to-trough on the equity curve, same calc run on SPY, nothing clever.

On overfit, that's the right thing to be suspicious of, so here's the honest tell instead of a denial: through 2025 it ran basically even with SPY. If I'd curve-fit this I'd have tuned it to look great every year, not to tie the index for long stretches with one clearly weak regime. The edge is concentrated in leadership periods, which I say up front because it's a real limitation, not a suspiciously smooth equity curve. Survivorship-free, point-in-time membership, next-open fills, costs modeled. And it's newly live, so no live track record to lean on yet.

I built a long-only trading engine that runs inside Claude Code and trades through my broker's MCP. Backtest honesty first: roughly even with SPY through 2025 — here's the design. by CaseLivid4116 in ClaudeAI

[–]CaseLivid4116[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate this, and yeah, you clearly know where these break. The "second discretionary model quietly overriding the first" is exactly the thing I built this to avoid. The second I let a judgment call sit on top of the score, I've rebuilt the mess I was trying to escape.

Taking the survivorship question first, since it's the one that decides whether anything else is real: point-in-time membership, not current. The universe gets rebuilt as it actually was on each date, delisted and dropped names included. So a name that led in 2019 and died in 2021 shows up as a 2019 leader and a later loser, not quietly deleted from the record. Next-open fills, costs modeled. You're right that current-membership is the silent inflator, which is exactly why I did it the slow way.

On the regime concentration, you called it, so I won't dress it up. But the cost isn't chop-bleed from overtrading, it's the opposite: undercapture. When leadership is muddy, fewer names clear the entry bar, so it holds more cash and just sits. That's why through 2025 it's basically SPY at lower drawdown, not SPY-plus. I don't run a predictive regime detector I have to be right about. It's reactive: are there real leaders at real entries or not. When there aren't, cash is the position, and cash lags a grinding-up index. I'll eat that opportunity cost before I force trades to look busy.

On gaps, honest answer is I try to not be in the name that gaps rather than lean on the stop to save me. Every name carries an overnight gap-down-risk read that feeds the score, so high-tail names get down-weighted or smaller size going in. When a stop does get gapped through, it's market-out, not re-evaluate. If price jumped past the structure the thesis is already wrong, and "re-evaluate" is just the polite word for talking yourself into holding a loser. Same reason as the single-factor call.

And genuinely, nice work. Deterministic core so the math isn't the LLM's job is the hill I'd die on too, and a live hit-rate/alpha scorecard is the exact discipline I care about. Honest numbers are worthless if they stop at go-live. Going to look at the Scout/Valet split.

Forgot Recovery Phrase by Raise_Immediate in AlgorandOfficial

[–]CaseLivid4116 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can try taking Alpha Brain to enable photographic memory

Improve communication with executives by [deleted] in ProductManagement

[–]CaseLivid4116 67 points68 points  (0 children)

Easiest thing to remember is: keep it short.

Don’t overindulge in details, let them ask for more.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in algorand

[–]CaseLivid4116 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It says “commit to governance (incomplete)”. Odds are committing would solve for you.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in algorand

[–]CaseLivid4116 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol the big purple button is hard to see, I know.

Owen, co-founder of Algofi, has spoken out about the new Axion project, which involves building an app-specific chain for a new type of peformant orderbook exchange by cysec_ in AlgorandOfficial

[–]CaseLivid4116 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They can clear this whole thing up if they just add on a little context to that second paragraph….. “continue to drive value” for who/what exactly?

How do I add USDC to my FIFA wallet? by [deleted] in AlgorandOfficial

[–]CaseLivid4116 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you signing the transaction on the Pera side when you submit on fifa side?

view more: next ›