Does anything beat buy & hold on Amazon (AMZN)?
Every setup we tested on Amazon (AMZN) — ranked out-of-sample, corrected for multiple testing, and forward-tracked in public from the day this page published. The honest answer is the headline.
No setup beat simply holding once tested honestly. We say so plainly.
Its best setup only beat buy-and-hold in one window — a regime artifact, not a strategy. Buy-and-hold benchmark: +25.2% CAGR over 2.9 years (+7.6% CAGR in the out-of-sample window).
Educational research from historical backtests — not investment advice. Past performance does not predict future results.
AMZN: we tested 1,503 setups and none beat simply holding Amazon
For Amazon (AMZN), we ran 1,503 indicator configurations against a plain buy-and-hold benchmark, and none of them earned the right to replace it. Individual stocks carry idiosyncratic risk — earnings surprises, guidance changes, sector rotation — that indicators built on price history cannot see coming. The best-looking setup, Elder Ray (Bull/Bear Power) on the 1-hour timeframe, ranked at the top in-sample but delivered an out-of-sample Sharpe of 2.29, short of our hurdle of 4.03. Buy-and-hold returned +25.2% annualized over the test period; the top strategies mostly captured pieces of that same move while adding trading friction.
How to read this honestly: when you test 1,503 setups and keep the best one, something will always look impressive by chance alone. That is why we require the survivor to clear 4.03 out of sample. Elder Ray (Bull/Bear Power) managed 2.29, with out-of-sample alpha of +33.7% across 0.9 years and 255 trades, and only 10.0% of everything we tested beat the benchmark on unseen data — roughly what luck would produce. None of this predicts anything: the regime that generated these numbers can shift, and single stocks shift faster than most. Treat this page as a record of what failed under honest testing, not a forecast.
Every figure above is computed from our own backtests — nothing is estimated or invented. Hypothetical results; not investment advice.
The least-bad setups — shown with their failure numbers
Nothing here earned a verdict — these are the best of a losing field, published so you can see exactly how "best" still failed.
Elder Ray (Bull/Bear Power)
Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): Buy uptrend pullbacks - EMA-13 rising while Bear Power is negative and turning up; exit when trend or bulls fade. Signals are evaluated at 1-hour-bar close, the position changes on the NEXT bar, 0.08% cost per side, long/flat only — no leverage, no shorting.
Out-of-sample (last ~30% of the window, never used to pick this setup): Sharpe 2.29 · alpha +33.7% · 58 trades over 0.9 yrs.
Stoch RSI (fast)
Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): Variant — fast Stochastic-RSI; long while above its midline. Signals are evaluated at 1-hour-bar close, the position changes on the NEXT bar, 0.08% cost per side, long/flat only — no leverage, no shorting.
Out-of-sample (last ~30% of the window, never used to pick this setup): Sharpe 1.65 · alpha +29.0% · 132 trades over 0.9 yrs.
Bollinger Squeeze
Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): TTM-style squeeze — go long when a volatility squeeze fires with upside momentum. Signals are evaluated at 1-hour-bar close, the position changes on the NEXT bar, 0.08% cost per side, long/flat only — no leverage, no shorting.
Out-of-sample (last ~30% of the window, never used to pick this setup): Sharpe 1.6 · alpha +9.9% · 11 trades over 0.9 yrs.
Since publication — including if it loses
The forward record is just getting started — the gap between the two is the honest score. Marked to market nightly from real prices, rules frozen at publication, as of 2026-07-02. Currently FLAT.
We tested 1,503 setups (indicator × parameters × timeframe) on Amazon (AMZN). Only setups with ≥30 trades qualify (1,348 did). Setups are ranked by out-of-sample Sharpe — the last ~30% of history, which standard-parameter rules never saw during selection. Because picking the best of 1,503 tries mines even the holdout, the VALIDATED verdict additionally requires the top setup’s OOS Sharpe to clear a selection hurdle of 4.03 (√(2 ln N)/√T) AND positive alpha in both windows. Of the eligible setups, 10.0% had positive out-of-sample alpha (median OOS Sharpe 0.34) — the table below is truncated, but this summary covers all of them. Full recipe: methodology · the engine’s contract lives in the repo as STRATEGY_METHODOLOGY.md.
Top 20 of 1,348 eligible setups
Ranked by out-of-sample Sharpe. Full + out-of-sample columns, costs included. Hypothetical.
| # | Setup | TF | Total ret | Sharpe | Max DD | Win | Trades | α vs B&H | OOS Sharpe | OOS α | OOS trades |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Elder Ray (Bull/Bear Power) | 1-Hour | -14.9% | -0.23 | -45.6% | 37.6% | 255 | -30.7% | 2.29 | +33.7% | 58 |
| 2 | Stoch RSI (fast) | 1-Hour | -1.1% | 0.09 | -42.7% | 39.5% | 486 | -25.6% | 1.65 | +29.0% | 132 |
| 3 | Bollinger Squeeze | 1-Hour | -3.8% | -0.08 | -22.5% | 34.9% | 43 | -26.6% | 1.6 | +9.9% | 11 |
| 4 | Holt Double-Exp MA | 4-Hour | -13.2% | -0.13 | -43.9% | 40.5% | 148 | -21.8% | 1.57 | +18.9% | 31 |
| 5 | Inside-Bar Breakout | 4-Hour | +28.2% | 0.56 | -21.7% | 39.2% | 74 | -11.6% | 1.32 | +11.6% | 22 |
| 6 | Advance Trend Pressure | 4-Hour | -6.6% | -0.02 | -44.1% | 46.0% | 100 | -20.0% | 1.31 | +21.1% | 22 |
| 7 | Squeeze Momentum | 4-Hour | +24.1% | 0.49 | -14.9% | 46.3% | 82 | -12.5% | 1.27 | +11.0% | 19 |
| 8 | Keltner 10 (x1.5) | 4-Hour | +5.3% | 0.25 | -9.9% | 41.8% | 55 | -16.9% | 1.19 | +3.8% | 16 |
| 9 | Hull MA 10/40 Cross | 4-Hour | +46.4% | 0.63 | -27.3% | 45.7% | 70 | -7.9% | 1.18 | +16.6% | 19 |
| 10 | Least Squares MA | 4-Hour | +5.4% | 0.17 | -28.9% | 40.6% | 133 | -16.9% | 1.18 | +14.2% | 34 |
| 11 | LSMA 10/30 Cross | 4-Hour | +32.6% | 0.49 | -31.3% | 52.3% | 65 | -10.7% | 1.17 | +16.3% | 18 |
| 12 | Chaikin Volatility | 4-Hour | +4.0% | 0.14 | -31.6% | 47.4% | 135 | -17.2% | 1.17 | +14.7% | 38 |
| 13 | TRIX | 4-Hour | +54.9% | 0.73 | -20.2% | 56.5% | 46 | -6.3% | 1.15 | +16.3% | 14 |
| 14 | Zero-Lag LSMA | 4-Hour | +41.0% | 0.57 | -22.2% | 46.2% | 106 | -9.0% | 1.14 | +13.8% | 32 |
| 15 | Demand Index | 4-Hour | +70.8% | 0.76 | -25.2% | 65.1% | 83 | -3.4% | 1.13 | +17.3% | 28 |
| 16 | Chaikin Money Flow | 4-Hour | +33.2% | 0.46 | -26.0% | 43.8% | 73 | -10.6% | 1.07 | +17.4% | 24 |
| 17 | Ehlers Roofing Filter | 1-Hour | -2.4% | 0.07 | -27.8% | 43.0% | 93 | -26.1% | 1.06 | +11.6% | 26 |
| 18 | KDJ | 1-Hour | -23.1% | -0.29 | -47.2% | 38.9% | 440 | -34.0% | 1.05 | +13.7% | 127 |
| 19 | Chaikin Oscillator | 4-Hour | +42.0% | 0.57 | -33.3% | 36.2% | 94 | -8.8% | 1.04 | +13.9% | 26 |
| 20 | A/D Oscillator | 4-Hour | +42.0% | 0.57 | -33.3% | 36.2% | 94 | -8.8% | 1.04 | +13.9% | 26 |
Hypothetical backtests with 0.08%/side costs. Not investment advice — see the full disclaimer.
These are historical backtests of mechanical rules. They are educational research, not investment advice, not a recommendation, and not tailored to you. Educational information only — not investment advice. Hypothetical backtested results; past performance does not guarantee future results. Trading involves risk of loss.