Full 2024-2026 opening-print window
Quote-attributed aggressor side did not rescue the opening print
Even the strict SOLD cohort was tiny, unstable, and negative for the proposed call fade.
In simple words
What happened
Adding a more sophisticated label did not make the original idea reliable. Seven days are too few, the typical call lost half, and flipping to the winning side after looking would be pure hindsight.
Who would pay?
If customers aggressively sold puts into dealer demand at the open, dealers or customers might temporarily distort downside pricing and fund a rebound. The strict SOLD label should therefore improve the call fade—not merely describe a volatile episode.
How it was tested
Only prints with defensible quote-side attribution entered the strict cell. The intended call fade was graded on real options and compared with the opposite right.
What would prove it wrong?
Buying the call averaged -7.1%, the median was -50%, and the 95% Wilson lower bound was about 8%. The put happened to average +35.7%, but n=7 is not an independently validated replacement edge.
Leader-collapsed evidence
What each setup actually did
Strict SOLD cell: n=7 independent daily leaders
| Setup | Leaders | Mean | Median | Hit rate | Controls | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOLD→CALLBuy the call fade after a strict SOLD put print | n=7 | -7.1% | -50.0% | Small-sample | Opposite put +35.7% (post-hoc, not validated) | REFUSED |
What we keep
Learnings
- 01
Aggressor labels are useful context, not permission to infer institutional intent from one print.
- 02
A positive opposite-right result is a control failure, not an invitation to reverse the strategy after seeing outcomes.
- 03
Small samples need interval estimates. A headline win rate without its Wilson interval hides how little is known.