Does anything beat buy & hold on Platinum (PL)?
Every setup we tested on Platinum (PL) — 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.
Beat buy-and-hold in both windows — but can't be told apart from selection luck.
Beat buy-and-hold in both the full window and out-of-sample but its OOS Sharpe 0.83 did not clear the 1.30 selection hurdle (best-of-N luck cannot be ruled out). Buy-and-hold benchmark: +5.8% CAGR over 26.4 years (+10.4% CAGR in the out-of-sample window).
Educational research from historical backtests — not investment advice. Past performance does not predict future results.
Platinum: the winner beat buy-and-hold in both windows — and still can't shake the luck problem
In Platinum, buy-and-hold is a harder benchmark than it looks: roll costs drag on returns, macro regimes flip the rules mid-game, and prices can go nowhere for years. Against that backdrop, we ran 755 indicator configurations on PL. The best, Stochastic on the weekly timeframe, beat buy-and-hold in both windows — +0.2% annualized edge over the full period, +4.4% out of sample against a buy-and-hold CAGR of +5.8%. Over 7.9 out-of-sample years it took 32 trades, won 78.1% of them, and drew down -35.0% at worst.
Here is the honest read. When you test 755 setups and keep the best one, the winner looks good by construction — even on pure noise. Our correction for that selection effect sets a Sharpe hurdle of 1.3, and this setup's out-of-sample Sharpe of 0.83 falls short. Statistically, we cannot distinguish it from the luckiest of hundreds of tries. It also has company: 2.8% of setups edged buy-and-hold, which tends to happen when one regime dominated the sample. Of everything tested, 676 produced enough trades to grade at all. Macro regimes rotate, and a rule tuned to one rarely survives the next. Past performance does not predict future results.
Every figure above is computed from our own backtests — nothing is estimated or invented. Hypothetical results; not investment advice.
Top setups as mechanical rules
Exactly as the backtest defined them — no discretionary steps, no hidden filters.
Stochastic
Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): Buy oversold %K/%D crosses under 20, exit above 80 (14,3,3). Signals are evaluated at weekly-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 0.83 · alpha +4.4% · 14 trades over 7.9 yrs.
Connors RSI
Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): Connors' composite RSI (price + streak) — buy below 20, exit above 70. Signals are evaluated at weekly-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 0.79 · alpha +0.7% · 19 trades over 7.9 yrs.
Fisher Center-of-Gravity
Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): Ehlers' Fisher-transformed Center of Gravity oscillator — long while turning up. Signals are evaluated at daily-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 0.75 · alpha +2.2% · 220 trades over 7.7 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 2026-06-29. Currently LONG.
We tested 755 setups (indicator × parameters × timeframe) on Platinum (PL). Only setups with ≥30 trades qualify (676 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 755 tries mines even the holdout, the VALIDATED verdict additionally requires the top setup’s OOS Sharpe to clear a selection hurdle of 1.3 (√(2 ln N)/√T) AND positive alpha in both windows. Of the eligible setups, 2.8% had positive out-of-sample alpha (median OOS Sharpe 0.09) — 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 676 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 | Stochastic | Weekly | +370.7% | 0.45 | -35.0% | 78.1% | 32 | +0.2% | 0.83 | +4.4% | 14 |
| 2 | Connors RSI | Weekly | +82.7% | 0.23 | -55.0% | 69.4% | 62 | -3.5% | 0.79 | +0.7% | 19 |
| 3 | Fisher Center-of-Gravity | Daily | +188.1% | 0.33 | -51.9% | 50.4% | 726 | -1.8% | 0.75 | +2.2% | 220 |
| 4 | Zero-Lag MACD | Weekly | +464.8% | 0.43 | -44.8% | 46.6% | 118 | +1.0% | 0.72 | +5.0% | 36 |
| 5 | Zero-Lag MACD | Weekly | +464.8% | 0.43 | -44.8% | 46.6% | 118 | +1.0% | 0.72 | +5.0% | 36 |
| 6 | MA Envelope | Weekly | +108.2% | 0.25 | -55.7% | 64.3% | 56 | -3.0% | 0.69 | +1.3% | 23 |
| 7 | Twiggs Money Flow | Daily | +229.5% | 0.32 | -54.5% | 42.7% | 143 | -1.2% | 0.66 | +3.2% | 18 |
| 8 | Detrended Price Osc. | Weekly | -5.2% | 0.1 | -72.8% | 60.4% | 154 | -6.0% | 0.65 | +2.8% | 43 |
| 9 | On-Balance Volume | Daily | +498.3% | 0.43 | -43.5% | 45.1% | 142 | +1.2% | 0.64 | +2.5% | 19 |
| 10 | Price Volume Trend | Daily | +362.7% | 0.38 | -54.1% | 39.8% | 118 | +0.1% | 0.64 | +2.2% | 18 |
| 11 | Bullish Engulfing | Weekly | +306.2% | 0.45 | -30.7% | 61.5% | 52 | -0.4% | 0.61 | -0.4% | 16 |
| 12 | Trade Volume Index | Daily | +516.7% | 0.43 | -43.5% | 45.7% | 140 | +1.3% | 0.6 | +1.5% | 21 |
| 13 | Projection Bands | Weekly | +84.7% | 0.23 | -57.4% | 66.7% | 48 | -3.5% | 0.6 | -0.3% | 18 |
| 14 | Stochastic RSI | Weekly | +89.3% | 0.23 | -65.8% | 64.4% | 45 | -3.4% | 0.6 | -0.4% | 15 |
| 15 | Intraday Momentum Index | Daily | +118.1% | 0.28 | -55.5% | 61.6% | 112 | -2.9% | 0.6 | -1.9% | 39 |
| 16 | Stochastic (20,5) | Weekly | +329.5% | 0.39 | -56.8% | 45.9% | 98 | -0.1% | 0.59 | +1.5% | 29 |
| 17 | Projection Bands | Daily | +22.8% | 0.14 | -78.1% | 61.8% | 251 | -5.2% | 0.59 | -1.3% | 87 |
| 18 | Murrey Math Lines | Daily | +32.5% | 0.16 | -72.1% | 72.7% | 66 | -4.9% | 0.58 | -1.6% | 25 |
| 19 | DeMarker | Daily | +86.6% | 0.23 | -68.6% | 75.0% | 76 | -3.5% | 0.56 | -1.4% | 21 |
| 20 | Net Volume | Daily | +144.8% | 0.27 | -55.1% | 45.5% | 303 | -2.4% | 0.55 | +0.2% | 79 |
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.