2024-2026 opening window, 09:30-09:40 ET
The opening put-print fade looked real—until 2024
A promising recent-window result failed its independent dates and oldest regime.
In simple words
What happened
The full sample could look profitable, but the oldest year reversed the effect and the independent test did not confirm it. That is exactly the shape a backtest must refuse.
Who would pay?
The proposed payer was a large opening hedger forced to buy puts near a short-term low, creating a snapback. If true, the call fade should beat both recent drift and the opposite put on unseen dates.
How it was tested
The put print was frozen before outcomes. The test compared buying the call fade, following with the put, and matched baseline/opposite controls using real SPXW bars.
What would prove it wrong?
Independent confirmation did not add edge over the baseline, and 2024 was negative. The recent result was a regime slice, not stable compensation.
What we keep
Learnings
- 01
Recent dates can make a fragile rule feel inevitable. The longest frozen window is the authority unless a regime rule existed first.
- 02
A large premium print is evidence that somebody traded, not evidence of their intent or next move.
- 03
The opposite contract and a time-matched baseline are required; otherwise ordinary opening volatility gets mislabeled as direction.