Skip to content

The ICT Silver Bullet: fair value gaps in the 10 o'clock hour

Micro E-mini Nasdaq-100 (MNQ) · 1-minute bars · 2016 to 2026 · ICT and liquidity · Popularized by ICT (Michael J. Huddleston)

No edge after costs: profit factor 0.95 out of sample.

Profit factor, out of sample
0.95
Average trade, out of sample
−0.03R
Win rate, out of sample
34%
Trades, 10 years
2,141
Max drawdown
$55,854
Pass odds, median plan
8.1%

Hypothetical results. 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.

Abstract

We backtested the ICT Silver Bullet rules on Micro E-mini Nasdaq-100 (MNQ) 1-minute bars from 2016-01-11 to 2026-10-30: 2,141 trades, with commission and a tick of slippage on every market and stop fill. In sample (to 2023-08-03) it made −0.13R per trade with a profit factor of 0.83; out of sample (from 2023-08-04) −0.03R per trade and 0.95 over 643 trades. 2 of the 25 parameter settings we tried were profitable out of sample. Sized at $250 of risk a trade, simulated 50K evaluations passed 3% to 11% of the time across 36 tracked plans.

1Hypothesis

Between 10:00 and 11:00 ET, take the first fair value gap: three one-minute candles where the middle one moved so fast it left a gap. Enter when price comes back to the gap, stop beyond the pattern, target twice the risk.

If price tends to return to a fair value gap and then continue in the gap's direction, a limit entry at the gap's edge in the 10 o'clock hour should reach 2R often enough to pay for costs.

2Data

Instrument
Micro E-mini Nasdaq-100 (MNQ), traded on the NQ price series (NQ.c.0: front month, rolled on the calendar). CME Globex via Databento.
Period
2016-01-11 to 2026-10-30: 2,745 sessions, 1,056,797 one-minute bars, built into 1,054,003 1-minute bars of the regular session (09:30 to 16:00 ET).
Costs
$0.75 commission a contract each way and 1 tick ($0.50) of slippage on every market and stop fill. Limit orders fill when price touches them; market orders fill at the next bar's open and stops at their price, each with one tick of slippage; when a bar touches both the stop and the target, the stop counts.
Position size
About $250 of risk a trade: micro contracts, rounded down, at least one. R is a trade's net P&L divided by its risk at entry.
Out of sample
The last 30% of weekdays: 2023-08-04 on (846 days), after 1,974 in-sample days. The rules were fixed before either side was run.

3Method

Our reading of the publicly described rules; the creator may trade it differently. The rules, exactly as the code runs them:

  1. A bullish fair value gap (FVG) is three 1-minute candles where the third candle's low is above the first candle's high: the middle candle left a gap. A bearish FVG is the mirror image (the third candle's high below the first candle's low).
  2. Only gaps whose three candles all fall between 10:00 and 10:59 ET count, and only gaps of at least min_gap_ticks (4 ticks, one point), so a one-tick gap is not a setup.
  3. The first qualifying gap of the hour sets the day's trade, in its direction.
  4. Entry: a limit order at the gap's near edge (for a bullish gap, its top: the third candle's low), working until 11:00 ET. It is cancelled if price reaches the target first.
  5. Stop: one tick beyond the three candles' extreme (for a bullish gap, below their lowest low).
  6. Target: target_r (2) times the risk.
  7. Exit: the stop, the target, or flat at 15:55 ET. One trade a day.
  8. Size: about risk_usd dollars of risk a trade (micro contracts, rounded down, at least 1 and at most max_contracts).

Not modelled: the draw on liquidity, which the creator uses to pick the direction; this version

takes the first gap either way.

bot.py, the file the engine ran
"""ICT Silver Bullet: the first fair value gap of the 10:00-11:00 ET hour, on MNQ 1-minute bars. Our reading of the publicly described rules; the creator may trade it differently. Rules:  1. A bullish fair value gap (FVG) is three 1-minute candles where the third candle's low is above     the first candle's high: the middle candle left a gap. A bearish FVG is the mirror image (the     third candle's high below the first candle's low).  2. Only gaps whose three candles all fall between 10:00 and 10:59 ET count, and only gaps of at     least `min_gap_ticks` (4 ticks, one point), so a one-tick gap is not a setup.  3. The first qualifying gap of the hour sets the day's trade, in its direction.  4. Entry: a limit order at the gap's near edge (for a bullish gap, its top: the third candle's     low), working until 11:00 ET. It is cancelled if price reaches the target first.  5. Stop: one tick beyond the three candles' extreme (for a bullish gap, below their lowest low).  6. Target: `target_r` (2) times the risk.  7. Exit: the stop, the target, or flat at 15:55 ET. One trade a day.  8. Size: about `risk_usd` dollars of risk a trade (micro contracts, rounded down, at least 1 and at     most `max_contracts`).  Not modelled: the draw on liquidity, which the creator uses to pick the direction; this version  takes the first gap either way."""import qy  def _hm(dt):    return dt.hour * 60 + dt.minute  class Bot(qy.Strategy):    """The first fair value gap between 10:00 and 11:00 ET, entered on the retrace into it."""     symbol = "MNQ"    timeframe = "1m"    session = "rth"    params = {"min_gap_ticks": 4, "target_r": 2.0, "risk_usd": 250, "max_contracts": 50}    max_position = 50    entry_window = ("10:00", "11:00")    flatten_time = "15:55"    overnight = False     def setup(self):        self.done_day = None        self.pending = None     def _size(self, risk_points):        per_contract = risk_points * self.point_value        n = int(self.p.risk_usd // per_contract) if per_contract > 0 else 1        return max(1, min(self.p.max_contracts, n))     def _tick(self, x):        return round(x / self.tick_size) * self.tick_size     def on_fill(self, fill):        self.pending = None     def on_bar(self, bar):        h, l = bar.high, bar.low        # A working entry: cancel it once price has reached the target without filling it.        if self.pending is not None and self.position.is_flat:            side, target = self.pending            if (side > 0 and h >= target) or (side < 0 and l <= target):                self.cancel_all()                self.pending = None        t = _hm(bar.dt)  # start of the third candle        if self.done_day == bar.date or not (602 <= t <= 658) or len(self.high) < 3:            return        tick = self.tick_size        h1, l1 = self.high[2], self.low[2]      # first candle        lo3 = min(self.low[0], self.low[1], l1)        hi3 = max(self.high[0], self.high[1], h1)        gap_up = (l - h1) / tick                 # bullish gap: third low above first high        gap_dn = (l1 - h) / tick                 # bearish gap: third high below first low        if gap_up >= self.p.min_gap_ticks:            entry = self._tick(l)            stop = self._tick(lo3 - tick)            risk = entry - stop            target = entry + self.p.target_r * risk            self.done_day = bar.date            self.buy(self._size(risk), limit=entry, stop_price=stop, target_r=self.p.target_r,                     tag=f"FVG long | f={gap_up:.0f}")            self.pending = (1, target)        elif gap_dn >= self.p.min_gap_ticks:            entry = self._tick(h)            stop = self._tick(hi3 + tick)            risk = stop - entry            target = entry - self.p.target_r * risk            self.done_day = bar.date            self.sell(self._size(risk), limit=entry, stop_price=stop, target_r=self.p.target_r,                      tag=f"FVG short | f={gap_dn:.0f}")            self.pending = (-1, target)

4Results

Table 1. In sample (2016-01-11 to 2023-08-03) against out of sample (2023-08-04 to 2026-10-30), after costs.
StatisticIn sampleOut of sampleAll
Trades1,4986432,141
Net P&L−$44,988−$5,032−$50,020
Profit factor0.830.950.86
Average trade−0.13R−0.03R−0.10R
95% interval of the average−0.20 to −0.05−0.14 to 0.08−0.16 to −0.04
t-statistic of trade R−3.44−0.46−3.12
Win rate33%34%33%
Average win / average loss1.681.841.72
Max drawdown$50,176$12,744$55,854
Sharpe ratio (daily, annualized)−1.41−0.39−1.12
Longest losing streak151415
Long / short profit factor0.88 / 0.780.95 / 0.950.90 / 0.83
Average holding time18 min15 min17 min
Commission paid$34,766$5,441$40,206
Cumulative P&LDrawdown from the highOut of sample from 2023-08-04

Drag across the chart to zoom into a period, double-click to reset.

Figure 1. Cumulative P&L after costs and its drawdown from the running high, 2016-01-11 to 2026-10-30, at about $250 of risk a trade. The shaded part is out of sample.
In sample (1,498 trades)Out of sample (643)Averages

Averages: −0.13R in sample, −0.03R out of sample.

Figure 2. The distribution of trade results in R, as a share of each side's trades. Bars are in sample; the line is out of sample.
In sampleOut of sampleQuintile mean, 95% intervalOLS fitDensity contours

1,600 of 2,141 points drawn; the fit and the means use all of them. Drag a box to zoom, double-click to reset.

Figure 3. Trade R against the fair value gap's size, log x-axis; the dashed line is the OLS fit (r = 0.06, p = 0.006, n = 2,141; Spearman ρ = 0.43). Out of sample alone: r = 0.08, p = 0.04. Squares are the means of five equal-count bins, with 95% intervals.

5Robustness

We reran the strategy on a grid of 25 settings of its two main parameters, each on the full history with the same split. 1 were profitable in sample and 2 out of sample.

4
0.94
0.92
0.96
0.96
0.96
3
0.94
0.92
1.00
0.95
0.96
2
0.99
0.95
1.02
0.97
0.94
1.5
0.95
0.90
0.95
0.90
0.90
1
0.87
0.86
0.92
0.84
0.85
2
4
8
12
16

Smallest gap (ticks) across, target (R) up. Solid outline: the defaults we tested; dashed: the in-sample best.

Hover a cell for both sides of the split.

Smallest gap (ticks) 2.00 to 16.0 across · Target (R) 1.00 to 4.00 in depth · Profit factor, out of sample 0.84 to 1.02 as height and shade. Drag or use the arrow keys to turn it.

Drag to rotate; ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom.

Figure 4. Profit factor across smallest gap (ticks) and target (R), as a map and as a surface of the same grid. Values above 4 are drawn at 4.

What would change it

Nothing on the grid helps. Its in-sample best, smallest gap (ticks) 16 and target (R) 4, had profit factor 1.02 in sample but 0.96 out of sample, against 0.95 for the defaults.

In-sample yearOut-of-sample year95% interval
Figure 5. Average trade by calendar year with its 95% interval: a year-by-year walk through the history. Lighter bars are in-sample years.
Figure 6. Average trade in three volatility regimes: terciles of the 20-session average of the daily range (% of the open), up to the day before the trade (regular session). The cut-offs use the whole period, so this describes, it doesn't forecast.
Figure 7. Average trade by weekday and by the hour of entry (New York time), with 95% intervals.
Median25th to 75th percentile5th and 95thRuin: down $2,000
Figure 8. 2,000 simulated years of 252 sessions, drawn session by session from the whole backtest (days without trades included), with 48 paths drawn; red paths lost $2,000 at some point. Risk of ruin 89.3% [87.8%, 90.5%]; 17% of years ended up; median ending P&L −$4,681, 5th to 95th percentile −$11,980 to +$3,224.

6Prop-firm implications

The backtest's sessions run through the rules of 36 tracked 50K evaluations: 2,000 runs of up to 60 sessions each, with the drawdown and daily limits checked against each trade's intraday low. Intervals are Wilson 95% intervals of the simulation. A simulation of the past, not the chance that anyone passes.

PlanPass odds, 95% intervalPassFailOut of timeMedian sessions
FundedNext Futures Flex Challenge 50K10.8%85%4%29
AquaFutures Beginner 50K Evaluation8.6%62%29%36
Bulenox 50K Qualification Account (Legacy, Option 2, EOD drawdown)8.6%62%29%36
Bulenox 50K Qualification Account (Legacy, Option 1, trailing drawdown)8.5%67%25%36
Alpha Futures Standard 50K Evaluation8.1%75%17%35.5
Alpha Futures Zero 50K Evaluation8.1%75%17%35.5
Apex Trader Funding 50K EOD Evaluation8.1%75%17%35.5
Earn2Trade Gauntlet Mini $50K8.1%75%17%35.5
Earn2Trade Trader Career Path TCP508.1%75%17%35.5
Elite Trader Funding 50K End of Day Drawdown Evaluation8.1%75%17%35.5
Scale 0 to 25%.
Figure 9. Simulated pass odds by plan, best first, with each plan's fail and out-of-time shares and the median sessions to a pass.

7Limitations

  • The draw on liquidity, which the creator uses to choose the direction, is not modelled: we take the first gap either way.
  • Limit orders fill on a touch, which flatters entries a little; a real queue may not fill at the price.
  • One market (MNQ) and a fixed 2R target; the creator targets liquidity pools.
  • A backtest on the past, with fills simulated from one-minute bars; live fills, queues and outages differ.

8Conclusion

No edge after costs: profit factor 0.95 out of sample. Nothing on the grid helps. Its in-sample best, smallest gap (ticks) 16 and target (R) 4, had profit factor 1.02 in sample but 0.96 out of sample, against 0.95 for the defaults. On this reading of the rules, with these costs, the historical record gives no reason to expect a profit.

Every number on this page comes from the MNQ bot above, run by our backtest engine on our own data. We publish what doesn't work as well as what does, and we don't tune rules to look good.

Hypothetical results. 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.