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.