Does anything beat buy & hold on Pool Corporation (POOL)?
Every setup we tested on Pool Corporation (POOL) — 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: +20.2% CAGR over 30.6 years (+6.3% CAGR in the out-of-sample window).
Educational research from historical backtests — not investment advice. Past performance does not predict future results.
POOL: we tested 740 setups and none beat simply holding Pool Corporation
For Pool Corporation (POOL), we ran 740 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, Holy Grail Confluence on the daily timeframe, ranked at the top in-sample but delivered an out-of-sample Sharpe of 0.74, short of our hurdle of 1.2. Buy-and-hold returned +20.2% 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 740 setups and keep the best one, something will always look impressive by chance alone. That is why we require the survivor to clear 1.2 out of sample. Holy Grail Confluence managed 0.74, with out-of-sample alpha of +6.8% across 9.2 years and 48 trades, and only 5.8% 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.
Holy Grail Confluence
Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): Your multi-confluence setup — RSI + Stochastic oversold + a volume spike. 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 0.74 · alpha +6.8% · 17 trades over 9.2 yrs.
Vegas Tunnel
Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): The EMA 144/169 'tunnel' — long while price holds above the tunnel. 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 0.66 · alpha +5.1% · 23 trades over 9.2 yrs.
Trend-Gated Asymmetric
Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): Longs only in an uptrend (price > 200 EMA gate), entered on a MACD cross up and exited fast/asymmetrically below the 20 EMA. 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 0.64 · alpha +4.8% · 13 trades over 9.2 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 740 setups (indicator × parameters × timeframe) on Pool Corporation (POOL). Only setups with ≥30 trades qualify (655 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 740 tries mines even the holdout, the VALIDATED verdict additionally requires the top setup’s OOS Sharpe to clear a selection hurdle of 1.2 (√(2 ln N)/√T) AND positive alpha in both windows. Of the eligible setups, 5.8% had positive out-of-sample alpha (median OOS Sharpe 0.11) — 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 655 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 | Holy Grail Confluence | Daily | >+999% | 0.66 | -60.5% | 81.2% | 48 | -8.7% | 0.74 | +6.8% | 17 |
| 2 | Vegas Tunnel | Daily | >+999% | 0.56 | -54.3% | 45.5% | 112 | -8.6% | 0.66 | +5.1% | 23 |
| 3 | Trend-Gated Asymmetric | Weekly | +303.7% | 0.35 | -48.4% | 61.0% | 41 | -15.5% | 0.64 | +4.8% | 13 |
| 4 | Camarilla Pivots | Weekly | >+999% | 0.6 | -52.6% | 56.5% | 329 | -8.7% | 0.62 | +5.3% | 104 |
| 5 | Hull MA 100 Trend | Weekly | +438.4% | 0.36 | -63.7% | 58.8% | 68 | -14.5% | 0.62 | +4.4% | 12 |
| 6 | T3 30 Trend | Weekly | >+999% | 0.53 | -66.5% | 60.5% | 38 | -10.6% | 0.54 | +3.1% | 10 |
| 7 | LSMA 100 Trend | Weekly | +700.7% | 0.42 | -48.9% | 60.3% | 73 | -13.1% | 0.54 | +2.7% | 15 |
| 8 | SMC: Change of Character | Daily | >+999% | 0.5 | -79.8% | 53.0% | 83 | -9.8% | 0.53 | +3.8% | 28 |
| 9 | TEMA 200 Trend | Weekly | +482.7% | 0.45 | -37.0% | 48.4% | 31 | -14.2% | 0.53 | +2.6% | 16 |
| 10 | SMC: Order Block | Weekly | >+999% | 0.6 | -73.6% | 53.1% | 49 | -6.4% | 0.52 | +3.5% | 12 |
| 11 | Advance Trend Pressure | Weekly | >+999% | 0.57 | -52.4% | 53.8% | 93 | -8.1% | 0.51 | +3.6% | 20 |
| 12 | Ehlers Cyber Cycle | Weekly | >+999% | 0.55 | -68.0% | 58.7% | 167 | -9.1% | 0.51 | +3.2% | 50 |
| 13 | Hull MA 200 Trend | Weekly | >+999% | 0.55 | -42.8% | 50.0% | 40 | -10.4% | 0.51 | +2.3% | 12 |
| 14 | Pascal's Weighted MA | Weekly | +410.0% | 0.36 | -57.9% | 59.8% | 102 | -14.7% | 0.5 | +1.1% | 22 |
| 15 | Connors RSI-2 | Weekly | >+999% | 0.65 | -40.3% | 66.2% | 68 | -9.8% | 0.48 | +1.0% | 20 |
| 16 | SMA 30 Trend | Weekly | >+999% | 0.6 | -50.1% | 52.4% | 63 | -7.3% | 0.47 | +1.6% | 21 |
| 17 | ALMA 200 Trend | Daily | +475.2% | 0.36 | -53.8% | 40.0% | 175 | -14.3% | 0.46 | +1.0% | 42 |
| 18 | Bullish Engulfing | Weekly | +221.0% | 0.3 | -74.9% | 64.0% | 75 | -16.2% | 0.46 | +0.1% | 25 |
| 19 | Elder-Ray | Daily | -12.7% | 0.02 | -42.3% | 44.5% | 578 | -20.7% | 0.46 | -2.5% | 177 |
| 20 | Trend Regularity Adaptive MA | Weekly | >+999% | 0.66 | -55.5% | 35.3% | 51 | -5.4% | 0.45 | +1.5% | 19 |
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.