Reel #2 · Opening-range breakout + 20 EMA pullback

This setup looks stupid, but it pays. At least, that's the claim.

Too few results to tell

Trades

over 26 trading days

Winners

27.6%

20 of 29 hit the stop

After fees, one contract

−$1,345.5

avg −$46.4 per trade, noise ±$131.01

The rules we tested

Mark the high and low of the first 30 minutes of the day.
Wait for the price to break above that range.
Wait for a dip under the 20-period EMA, then buy when the price climbs back above it.
Stop under the dip. Target: the high of the day. Anything still open is closed at the end of the day.

Dow futures (YM, $5 per point), 2-minute bars, regular hours, 2026-08-24 → 2026-09-29. Costs: $14.5 per round trip per contract.

Why the verdict is "too few", not "it loses"

29 trades in about five weeks is a small sample. The average trade lost −$46.4, but the noise band is ±$131.01 per trade, so this can't prove the setup loses. What it shows is that there's no sign it pays. A screenshot of profits isn't a test.

Variants

Version	Trades	Winners	Net, 1 contract	Avg per trade
Long only (the reel)	29	27.6%	−$1,345.5	−$46.4 ±$131.01
Long only, target checked first	29	27.6%	−$1,345.5	−$46.4 ±$131.01
Long and short	102	32.4%	−$4,139	−$40.58 ±$67.71

What this doesn't tell you

Five weeks can't show whether a day-trading setup works across different markets.
Fills are assumed at the bar's price; real slippage on stops is usually worse.
Past results don't predict future results. Taxes are ignored.

Data: Dow futures (YM=F) 2-minute bars from yfinance (Yahoo Finance), 2026-08-24 to 2026-09-29. Summary figures only; per-trade data isn't republished because of the price source's terms.