Does the TTM Squeeze strategy beat buy & hold on Avalanche? (AVAX · backtested honestly)
A rule that reads low realized volatility — the Bollinger Bands compressed inside the Keltner Channels drawn around the same moving average — as a coiled range, and the release of that compression, with momentum leaning up, as the start of a move.
Over this period, TTM Squeeze on Avalanche returned -43.6%, while simply buying and holding returned -84.0% — it beat buy & hold by 40.4 points, with a worst drawdown of -50.7%. It traded 23 times and sat in cash about 86% of the time. It's a mechanism you test — not a recommendation.
That's the past — settled, free, and the weakest proof there is. It beat buy & hold here, but most that look good over one window don't survive nearby settings and time. The rare few that do are worth everything, and the only proof left is forward: forward-test TTM Squeeze on Avalanche on paper — zero hindsight, losses and all — and get a mechanical alert the day it signals (you trade on your own broker). A hindsight-free record can only be built by time passing, so the only way to have proof in three months is to start today.
Or stop here — a backtest you can kill for free has already done its job.
Run it yourself
Change the parameters and the window, then re-run — no account needed.
Have your own idea for Avalanche? Build and honestly test your own strategy — no code, costs on, measured against buy & hold.
Build your own on Avalanche →Two real trades from this backtest
Shown at the modeled fills — entries at the next open, protective stops and targets at their level; costs on. A single trade is never a signal and says nothing about the next one — not the best or worst, a middling winner and a middling loser among the completed trades.
23 trades total — 8 winners, 15 losers (35% won). Below is one of each, not a scoreboard.
- Entry. A long entry fired; filled at the next open on 2026-09-10 at $7.79 — never the signal bar's own close.
- Held. 6 daily bars.
- Exit. Exited on 2026-09-16 at $7.27 (the exit rule fired (filled at the next open)).
- Result. -6.79% after costs.
The worst single trade in this whole test reached -20.16%.
- Entry. A long entry fired; filled at the next open on 2025-09-11 at $29.43 — never the signal bar's own close.
- Held. 20 daily bars.
- Exit. Exited on 2025-10-01 at $30.00 (the exit rule fired (filled at the next open)).
- Result. +1.86% after costs.
Trading costs + slippage (0.10%) are already deducted from every figure above. One trade is never the edge — it's the whole distribution (the win rate, the losers, the reality-check) that matters; this just makes the mechanics concrete. It describes the past; it is not a prediction.
A live badge that re-runs itself and links back here. Free to embed on any blog, newsletter or forum — it shows the honest result, beat or lagged.
<iframe src="https://stratsemble.com/embed/avalanche-ttm-squeeze-backtest" width="360" height="340" style="border:0;border-radius:12px;max-width:100%" loading="lazy" title="Does the TTM Squeeze strategy beat buy & hold on Avalanche?"></iframe>- • The strategy line is TTM Squeeze on Avalanche; the dashed line is simply buying and holding AVAX. Beating the dashed line is the whole point — many strategies don't.
- • Max drawdown is the worst peak-to-trough fall you'd have sat through. A higher return with a much deeper drawdown is not obviously better.
- • Every fill assumes next-open execution with costs & slippage on — no acting on prices you couldn't have known.
- • A small number of trades means a small sample. Treat a great-looking result on a handful of trades with suspicion.
This is a hypothetical backtest of a well-known mechanism on past data. It is not advice, not a prediction, and not a claim that the strategy works. I hold no funds and place no orders. The value here is the ability to test an idea honestly — see where it would have helped, and where it would have hurt — before you ever risk real money on your own broker.
How this is computed → · who's behind it · where a backtest fits
See what actually beats buy & hold — most don't, here are the rare few that do →