#70 — Trailing-stop bake-off (SuperTrend vs PSAR et al.)
Hypothesis — what it tests
Whether a better trailing exit (non-accelerating, volatility-aware) materially improves a fixed trend entry — and which trailing-stop family is best for retail FX.
Description
The user asked for PSAR alternatives, so a controlled exit bake-off was run: a fixed Donchian(20) breakout trend entry on 12 pairs at H4 and H1, net of spread, IS/OOS split, with ONLY the exit varied across trailing-stop families (SuperTrend, PSAR, MFE-giveback, chandelier, n-bar, ATR-ratchet, fixed SL/TP). A first run had a bug — globally-computed PSAR/SuperTrend series gave fake above-price exits and survivorship, caught via an impossible 99% win rate — fixed with per-trade-anchored stops and mark-to-market closes. SuperTrend (a per-trade ratcheting hl2±m·ATR band with close-based exit) won decisively: positive IS+OOS at both H4 (+9.7/+17.5 p/trade) and H1 (+9.9/+7.4), the only scheme positive at both, beating PSAR by ~20p/trade; PSAR was among the worst (−3.3 H4 / −3.0 H1, biggest drawdown) because its acceleration factor rushes the stop into noise. Since the raw entry was ≈breakeven, the exit alone produced the edge. The actionable follow-up — an A/B swapping SuperTrend for PSAR on 010's real SMA-stack entry — came out a tie and PSAR was kept: the ~20p gap came from the breakout trend entry's let-winners-run profile, another instance of validating exits only against the exact live entry.
Key result
Indicators
Algorithms
Code
Interactive version (search, filters, figures): the experiment explorer.