The weakest of the four completed and open cycles. The model's multiple over buy-and-hold is barely clear of the 1.05× line this site uses to separate a win from a tie — a narrow win. Read it as "did not beat holding by much", not as a result. The model's maximum drawdown still came in well short of buy-and-hold's.
Each row is one exit signal, the low the model sat out through, and the re-entry signal that followed. "BTC change" is the exit price divided by the re-entry price: above 1.00× means the round trip bought back cheaper than it sold (a gain in BTC terms); below 1.00× means it bought back higher (a cost), even in cycles the model won overall.
| # | Exit signal | Low reached | Re-entry signal | Days out | BTC change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sep 27, 2017 $4,208 |
Sep 29, 2017 $4,155 (-1.3%) |
Feb 5, 2018 $6,850 |
131 | 0.61× ▼ cost BTC |
| 2 | Apr 14, 2018 $8,006 |
Apr 17, 2018 $7,888 (-1.5%) |
May 23, 2018 $7,521 |
39 | 1.06× ▲ gained BTC |
The costliest event on this page happened here: exiting in September 2017, three months before the December 2017 top, and not re-entering until February 2018 — a round trip that lost BTC (see the table). This is the cycle documented elsewhere on this site as an accepted structural limit: the model trims into parabolic advances, and 2017's kept running well past every historical precedent for how far a blow-off extends.
The second round trip, through the initial 2018 decline, came out roughly flat. Net effect: a cycle where the model's return is a wash against just holding, while its drawdown was still meaningfully shallower.
Figures are the model's return as a multiple of buy-and-hold over the same window — not a multiple of starting capital. 1.00× is a tie.