Bottom Line
This one is more interesting than I expected, but not in the clean way the video sells it.
The basic pitch is simple: use MACD crosses for entries, only trade in the direction of the 200-day moving average, place the stop around the 200 MA, and aim for 1.5R. That is a sensible structure. It is not just “MACD crossed, buy now.” There is at least a trend filter and a defined exit.
The test did find pockets of strength, especially in major Forex pairs and Nasdaq. But the claim that it works in almost every market does not survive cleanly. Bitcoin was awful, gold made money but lagged buy-and-hold badly, and several index results were not worth the effort.
My verdict is promising but unproven. There is enough here to keep testing, but not enough to trust the YouTube version as a complete strategy.
What The Video Said
The video starts with a big claim: this is one of the highest-win-rate strategies you can do in trading, it works in almost every market, and it makes money. That is a lot to put on one indicator setup.
The actual rules are more grounded:
- Use the standard MACD components: MACD line, signal line, histogram, and zero line.
- Go long when the MACD line crosses above the signal line, but only if the cross happens below the zero line.
- Go short when the MACD line crosses below the signal line, but only if the cross happens above the zero line.
- Add a 200-day moving average as a trend filter.
- Only take longs when price is above the 200 MA.
- Only take shorts when price is below the 200 MA.
- Put the stop around the 200 MA.
- Use a 1.5 reward/risk target.
- Improve the setup by waiting for price to react around support or resistance.
The support/resistance part is where the video becomes hard to test cleanly. “Identify a key support where price hits and bounces” is a real trading idea, but it is also where a lot of hindsight can sneak in.
How I Translated It Into Rules
I tested the mechanical part first. If the base version falls apart, there is no point pretending the discretionary layer is proven.
| Component | Test rule |
|---|---|
| Indicator | MACD 12/26/9 |
| Trend filter | 200-period simple moving average |
| Long setup | MACD crosses above signal, MACD is below zero, close is above 200 MA |
| Short setup | MACD crosses below signal, MACD is above zero, close is below 200 MA |
| Entry | Next bar open |
| Stop | 200 MA level from the signal bar |
| Target | 1.5R |
| Time stop | 60 bars |
| Costs | 2 bps round trip |
| Ambiguity | If daily OHLC hits stop and target in the same bar, assume stop first |
That is a little harsher than a perfect chart replay, but it is closer to how a rule has to survive outside a video.
Data Used
The public script does not include this site’s private data files. To reproduce the test, download the script and pass your own OHLC CSV:
python3 run_backtest.py --csv your_ohlc.csv --cost-bps 2 --rr 1.5
For the example sweep below, I used local daily data across major Forex pairs, gold, US equity indices, and Bitcoin. I am publishing aggregate metrics only, not the raw data files.
Cross-Market Test
Because the video says the strategy works in almost every market, I tested it broadly. For each asset class, I aligned all symbols to the same overlapping date period so the rows are easier to compare.
All sweep results use daily bars (1d).
Crypto 2017-02-16 to 2026-06-04
| Symbol | Trades | Win rate | Avg trade (bps) ? | Net return | Buy & hold net return | Profit factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BTCUSD | 42 | 38.1% | -323.88 | -87.7% | 6,155.7% | 0.62 |
Forex 2011-02-08 to 2026-05-22
| Symbol | Trades | Win rate | Avg trade (bps) ? | Net return | Buy & hold net return | Profit factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUDUSD | 61 | 39.3% | 36.24 | 21.6% | -29.7% | 1.38 |
| EURUSD | 50 | 58.0% | 70.89 | 40.6% | -14.9% | 2.30 |
| GBPUSD | 50 | 54.0% | 46.31 | 24.3% | -16.6% | 1.60 |
| NZDUSD | 51 | 35.3% | -6.09 | -5.6% | -24.1% | 0.95 |
| USDCAD | 61 | 50.8% | 15.72 | 8.9% | 39.5% | 1.22 |
| USDCHF | 66 | 51.5% | 22.74 | 14.5% | -17.9% | 1.34 |
| USDJPY | 59 | 45.8% | 21.84 | 12.4% | 93.3% | 1.32 |
Gold 2014-10-17 to 2026-06-04
| Symbol | Trades | Win rate | Avg trade (bps) ? | Net return | Buy & hold net return | Profit factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XAUUSD | 56 | 42.9% | 77.29 | 43.9% | 262.9% | 1.50 |
Indices 2014-11-05 to 2026-06-04
| Symbol | Trades | Win rate | Avg trade (bps) ? | Net return | Buy & hold net return | Profit factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAS100 | 27 | 74.1% | 525.96 | 283.3% | 628.8% | 7.21 |
| US30 | 42 | 42.9% | -30.13 | -14.8% | 196.1% | 0.83 |
| US500 | 33 | 51.5% | 103.00 | 34.0% | 275.7% | 1.56 |
The Forex table is the part that made me pause. EURUSD, GBPUSD, AUDUSD, USDCHF, and USDJPY all had positive strategy returns while buy-and-hold was negative or weaker for several of them. That is the most flattering part of the test.
But the broad-market claim still gets into trouble. Bitcoin was a disaster. Gold and Nasdaq made money, but just owning the thing did much better. The Dow lost money. So the setup may be useful as a structured Forex swing idea, but I would not call it an all-market money machine.
First Read
I like the bones of this more than a plain MACD crossover. The 200 MA filter is doing useful work because it stops the strategy from blindly buying every bullish MACD wiggle inside a downtrend.
The stop around the 200 MA also makes intuitive sense. If the whole trade is based on price respecting the bigger trend, then breaking back through that trend line is a reasonable place to admit the setup failed.
The support/resistance filter is probably important, but it is also the easiest part to abuse. If you draw the level after seeing the bounce, the strategy will always look cleaner than it really is.
What Could Break It
The biggest issue is that the stop can be very wide. If price is far above the 200 MA when a long signal triggers, the risk is huge. A 1.5R target can then be so far away that the trade becomes more like a slow trend bet than a crisp MACD setup.
The second issue is asset selection. The Forex results were interesting, but Bitcoin was awful and equity indices mostly lagged passive exposure. That means the rule is not portable enough to accept the video’s broad claim.
Verdict
Verdict: Promising but unproven.
I would keep this one in the research pile. The mechanical test was not embarrassing, and the Forex results were better than I expected. But the headline claim is too strong. This does not work cleanly across everything, and it does not automatically beat buy-and-hold in markets with strong long-term drift.
The next serious version would need an objective support/resistance filter and a cap on maximum stop distance from entry. Without those two pieces, the YouTube version is still too loose.
Disclaimer
This is personal research and not financial advice. Backtests can be incomplete, overfit, or impossible to execute live.