⌂ Research Index · tradebotsecrets research record · evidence-first, negatives included
DCA Ladder Replay — BTC Trading System

Real BTC 1h candles · current halving cycle's SHORT window · going with the bigger trend

DCA Ladder Replay

The real 1h BTC price since the halving-cycle theory's own predicted top for THIS cycle (2025-09-28) -- the "bigger trend" this ladder rides is the same macro SHORT call from the Halving Cycle dashboard, never re-decided here. Toggle between your OWN ladder (read off your screenshot) and the account-specific views -- a genuinely improved, cross-validated ladder for the 1x account; your own ladder again for 5x, since no reliable improvement survived proper validation there (see below for why) -- to see where each one's entries and exits actually fired against real price.

Correction 1: exit order sizing was rebuilt to match the REAL, currently-live uplink code (tradebotsecrets_uplink/apexomni/apexomni_module.py) after you caught that an earlier version had read a different, non-authoritative sibling repo -- the real formula sizes every exit level against the ORIGINAL position, not the shrinking remainder (still capped, so it can never overshoot or flip).
Correction 2: you asked directly whether "Available Margin" mode (which recalculates the tradable budget from whatever's currently available, not a fixed wallet total) was modeled -- it wasn't, fully. Fixed so a winning position's unrealized P&L now genuinely grows the NEXT tick's entry budget (and a losing one shrinks it), matching the real exchange. This changed the 5x account's own picture materially -- see below.

Real BTC Price · ladder fills · average entry price

Showing:

Equity: your ladder vs. consensus (both accounts)

Speed
Press Play or drag the scrubber to begin.
Real close price
Entry fill (SELL, adding to the short)
Exit fill (BUY, taking profit)
Average entry price (moves as the ladder fills)
Your ladder equity
Consensus (optimized) equity

Recommended spacing -- separated by account

Cross-validated across 3 real walk-forward folds (seeded with your own real ladder), validated on a 4th, never-touched slice. Each account picked whichever objective (raw return vs. drawdown-adjusted) actually survived and generalized best FOR IT -- they came out genuinely different.

1x account — optimized for drawdown-adjusted return, 7 entries / 3 exits

Untouched holdout+2.74%(your ladder: +1.39%)
Full window(your ladder: )

Entry ladder (distance / size)

Exit ladder (distance / size)

Click a field to select all, then Ctrl+C to copy -- comma-delimited, percent decimal:

5x account — no reliable improvement found

Under the corrected available-margin dynamics, NEITHER search objective reliably beat your own ladder on the real untouched holdout: raw_return got liquidated outright on the full window; risk_adjusted's full-window number looks spectacular (+756.6%) but its held-out result was -6.06% -- worse than your own baseline's +5.06%. Fold-to-fold holdout returns swung from -34% to +84%, real instability, not noise to average away. The "Optimized for 5x" view below shows your OWN ladder, not a fabricated win.

Untouched holdout (your ladder, unchanged)+5.06%
Full window (your ladder, unchanged)

Why this happens, and worth thinking about regardless of the search: "Available Margin" mode means a winning position's own unrealized gains grow the budget for its NEXT entries -- at 5x, a real trend genuinely compounds your exposure deeper into that same trend. That's a double-edged design: it can amplify gains in a real sustained move (which is exactly what happened full-window here) but it also means a reversal hits a BIGGER position than you started with, not a fixed one. Worth considering whether "Total Wallet Value" (a fixed budget, no compounding) is the safer choice specifically for the 5x account, independent of any spacing optimization.

Entry ladder (distance / size)

Exit ladder (distance / size)

Click a field to select all, then Ctrl+C to copy -- comma-delimited, percent decimal:

After the available-margin compounding fix, only the 1x account has a genuine, cross-validated improvement over your own ladder (drawdown-adjusted objective, +2.74% vs +1.39% holdout). The 5x account's story changed from "clean win" to "no reliable improvement" once the search had to contend with real compounding exposure -- see above for why.

Entry/exit COUNT was checked once already (11 entries/2 exits beat 7/3 for the 1x account) but that check was run BEFORE the available-margin fix, so it isn't re-confirmed under the current, correct mechanics. Not re-run yet given how much this page has already changed in one session -- worth doing as a genuine next step before trusting a count change over the fixed 7/3 shape shown above.