Do the setups sold to prop-firm traders beat costs?

Thirteen popular day-trading setups marketed to traders trying to pass a prop-firm evaluation (a paid challenge for a funded account), tested on Nasdaq-100 and S&P 500 micro futures from 2019 to 2026. None of the 26 setup-and-market combinations made money after trading costs.

Refuted: Failed its test once trading costs were included. How to read a study.

Verdict, as the study states it: Tape: 0 of 26 cells VALIDATED. Prop overlays (frozen H-P1): not supported. Prop business test (frozen H-P2): holds. Post-hoc size sensitivity (addendum, not a pre-registered verdict).

Study number

FPR-26-15

Versions tested

28

Pre-registration written

Sep 16, 2026, 17:48 ET

First result

Sep 16, 2026, 17:50 ET

Markets

MNQ and MES (micros), traded off NQ and ES GLBX 1m bars (.v.0 volume roll)

Backs

13 setups sold to prop traders

Sample

In-sample 2019-01-01 to 2023-12-31; out-of-sample 2024-01-01 to 2026-09-11 (2018 used only to warm 20-day means)

Costs

$1.50 per micro round turn plus 1 tick slippage each way on market and stop orders; news stop entries +4 ticks; limits fill only 1 tick through

Notes and defects

Strongest pre-registration in the bundle: PREREG-2026-09-16.md is byte-identical to the source and its sha256 4e921928ecd174744cb1d2970fce62d1c0305015e9308a8c4d2f3aa3242cfe32 matches the recorded .sha256 file ('frozen 2026-09-16 17:48:13 EDT'); prereg created 17:48:11, engine.mjs 17:50:33, first output 17:50:48. Arms = 26 tape cells (13 setups x 2 roots) + the two prop hypotheses H-P1/H-P2. Not counted as arms: 26 seeded coin-flip control streams, and the post-hoc size addendum (520 cells; 4 positive in both halves at list fees, 3 of them coin-flip controls). The site's strategyClaims.ts numbers (all 26 cells' net/t/n/verdict, overlay table, size rows, 520/4/3) match out/*.json exactly. CATALOG.md/SOURCES.md are the public claims being tested (third-party URLs). Run: node --max-old-space-size=12288 engine.mjs; node sim.mjs; SIZES=1,3,5,10,20 node sim.mjs. Trade-level outputs (out/trades-NQ.json, out/trades-ES.json) are not included.

Data needed to rerun: CME futures 1-minute OHLCV bars (Databento GLBX layout: ts_event,rtype,publisher_id,instrument_id,open,high,low,close,volume,symbol) at <data-root>/fp-data/glbx/<ROOT>/1m/<YEAR>.csv; licensed vendor data, not redistributed (NQ, ES 2018-2026); CPI/NFP/FOMC release timestamps from the fp-context event archive (<data-root>/fp-context: events/**/*.jsonl with ts_event/ts_published/subclass/region, events/earnings/_weights.json, features/context_daily.jsonl); built from FMP, Fed, BLS/BEA, Federal Register, GDELT, Alpaca and SEC EDGAR feeds; not redistributed and its builder is not included

Original working title: Backtest of claimed 'profitable prop trader' strategies (13 setups x NQ/ES micros) plus a prop-account simulator

Files

Hashes for every file are in SHA256SUMS. Market data is not included.

Cite this study

Futures Playbook Research (2026). Do the setups sold to prop-firm traders beat costs?. Study FPR-26-15. https://www.futuresplaybook.com/research/prop-firm-strategy-claims

These results are based on simulated or hypothetical performance results that have certain inherent limitations. Unlike the results shown in an actual performance record, these results do not represent actual trading. Also, because these trades have not actually been executed, these results may have under- or over-compensated for the impact, if any, of certain market factors, such as lack of liquidity. Simulated or hypothetical trading programs in general are also subject to the fact that they are designed with the benefit of hindsight. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to these being shown.