🔍 Read the full analysis: Week Four: The Results Of 13,000 Tests On A Viral Trade Strategy on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
ThorstenMeyerAI.com reports that two simulated versions of a viral Polymarket 5-minute crypto trade lost money across about 13,000 test windows on BTC, ETH, SOL and XRP. The strategy’s paired-bid version achieved its intended double-fill only 3 times in 9,486 attempts; the study used simulated money, not real trades.
Two simulated versions of a viral trade strategy for Polymarket’s 5-minute crypto markets lost money across about 13,000 test windows on four coins, according to a May 21 report from ThorstenMeyerAI.com. The test found that the paired-bid strategy’s intended double-fill occurred only 3 times in 9,486 attempts; no real funds were used.
The strategy was inspired by a YouTuber’s reported Polymarket trade: buying both the Up and Down outcomes for 2 cents per share. In a binary market, one side ultimately pays $1 per share and the other $0. If 50 shares on both sides could be bought for $2 total, the winning 50 shares would redeem for $50, leaving $48 net before any other costs. That outcome depends on both orders filling at the low price.
ThorstenMeyerAI.com says it rebuilt the approach in two forms and ran 24 parallel experiments on BTC, ETH, SOL and XRP over two days. Its paper-fill model counted a simulated bid as filled only when a real taker sold into it. In 9,486 paired-bid attempts, both sides filled three times, or 0.032%. The report records 1,297 loser-only fills, 22 winner-only fills and 8,162 attempts with neither order filled, with a net simulated result of minus $280.
A second version posted after a market closed, bidding only on the side the system believed had won. It produced 8 fills from 3,482 posts. The report says four of those fills reached settlement and all four lost; BTC and XRP had no fills. The authors attribute the losses to a gap between the price-feed reading used to pick a side and Polymarket’s official resolution.
Rare Fills Undercut the Trade
The test challenges the assumption that a striking individual trade can be repeated as a dependable strategy. In the paired version, the proposed profit required both sides to fill at the low price, but the report found that outcome in only 3 of 9,486 attempts. Far more often, one order filled on the eventual losing side, leaving the simulated trader exposed to a loss.
The result matters to readers assessing viral trading claims because it distinguishes an exceptional transaction from a repeatable edge. A documented high-return trade may be real while still offering little evidence about how often the same conditions occur. Here, the report says the tested approaches were net-negative in simulation; it does not establish how every implementation or future market condition would perform.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The source article describes the original trade as taking advantage of stale liquidity around the close of a 5-minute market. Its proposed explanation is that an order may remain available after the outcome appears decided, allowing another trader to buy the winning side cheaply. The account says the YouTuber pointed to on-chain transactions as evidence that the unusual trades occurred, but also acknowledged that he had not yet established whether the approach could be repeated.
In the literal reconstruction, bids were placed on both outcomes at the start of a market window. The apparent payoff depended on both orders filling; if only the losing side filled, the position could lose its value at settlement. The post-close version attempted to avoid that exposure by bidding only on the apparent winner, but the report says its price reading could differ from the eventual oracle resolution. The article identifies itself as Week Four of an ongoing series and says all tests used simulated money.
“This is going to take time because this is a rare event… probably I didn’t have anything for you in this video about the results.”
— The YouTuber, as quoted by ThorstenMeyerAI.com
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Limits of the Paper-Test Results
The findings come from the publication’s own two-day simulated test, not a peer-reviewed study or a live-money trading record. The source describes the fill model and provides counts for the main outcomes, but the supplied material does not give full experiment logs, code, detailed fee assumptions, or enough information for an independent replication. The reported sample is about 13,000 windows overall, while the paired-bid outcome table covers 9,486 attempts.
It is also unclear from the source how results might change under different order sizes, market conditions, execution delays, or trading costs. The report’s explanation for the post-close losses is that its price feed and Polymarket’s official resolution did not always agree; the supplied material does not provide a detailed account of each discrepancy. The results should be read as a report on these specific tests, not as a prediction of every future market.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Further Tests and Replication
ThorstenMeyerAI.com presents the piece as the fourth week of an ongoing series, but the supplied article does not specify a publication date or method for the next installment. The immediate next step for readers seeking to evaluate the result would be to review the underlying test method and data, if made available, and check whether an independent test reproduces the reported fill rates and losses.
Until then, the confirmed scope remains limited to the reported paper exercise: two strategy variants, four coins, two days and simulated funds. The original transaction may illustrate that an unusual profitable trade happened; whether similar opportunities can be found often enough to overcome losing fills remains unsupported by the results reported here.
cryptocurrency market analysis tools
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What did the 13,000 tests find?
ThorstenMeyerAI.com reports that both tested strategy versions lost money in simulation. The paired-bid version’s intended double-fill happened 3 times in 9,486 attempts, and its reported net result was minus $280.
Did the test use real money?
No. The source says the strategies were tested with simulated money and that no real funds were involved.
How could buying both sides produce a profit?
If both Up and Down shares were bought cheaply, the winning side would pay $1 per share while the losing side would pay nothing. The proposed profit depended on both orders filling at the low price; the report says this happened only three times in the paired test.
Why did the post-close version lose?
The report says its system chose a side using a price-feed reading made shortly after the market closed. That reading sometimes differed from Polymarket’s official resolution, so the side treated as the winner did not win at settlement in the four fills that settled.
Does this prove the strategy can never work?
No. The report describes results from a specific two-day paper test on four coins. It says the tested versions lost, but the supplied material does not establish outcomes for every implementation, market condition or future period.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
