Skip to main content

Research · Pattern studies · Descending Triangle

ChartDatabase Research · Chart pattern study

Descending Triangle Pattern

Timeframe

1h timeframe — 236 snapshots across 189 Binance USDT‑M futures markets — bearish bias. Results are not mixed with other candle intervals.

Abstract

Descending Triangle statistics on the 1h timeframe only (n=236). Timeframes are analyzed separately and never pooled — 15m, 1h, 4h, and 1d horizons are not interchangeable. Use the timeframe control under the title to switch. Exclusive breakout / breakdown / sideways: 72.46% / 26.69% / 0.85%.

Keywords Descending Triangle patternDescending Triangle breakoutDescending Triangle cryptohow to trade Descending TriangleDescending Triangle success ratecrypto chart patternschart pattern success rate

Key results (1h only)

Key findings
  1. Descending Triangle on 1h: n=236 snapshots across 189 coins — breakout 72.46%, breakdown 26.69%, sideways 0.85% (exclusive classes; not pooled with other timeframes).
  2. Expected-direction (bearish) hit rate on 1h: 26.69%.
  3. Mean max-up / max-down on 1h: 5.649% / -2.72% (MFE÷|MAE| ≈ 2.077); median 20-candle close return 1.087%.
Snapshots
236
Coins
189unique symbols
Hit rate
26.69%expected direction
Breakout
72.46%exclusive
Breakdown
26.69%exclusive
Sideways
0.85%neither
Median ret.
1.087%
MFE ÷ |MAE|
2.077

Scope for this pattern

  • Exchange / market: Binance USD-M Futures (perpetual contracts).
  • Pattern end: For Descending Triangle, pattern end is the last candle still inside the projected trendline channel after formation: closes may not breach support/resistance by more than 0.5× NATR(14). Features and the next-20-candle outcomes are taken from that last in-band candle, and breakout/breakdown is evaluated on confirmed closes.
  • Active timeframe: 1h only — other intervals (15m, 1h, 4h, 1d) are available via the control under the title and are never mixed into these figures.
  • Outcome horizon: next 20 candles on the selected timeframe. Headline KPIs use pattern-end snapshots: mutually exclusive breakout / breakdown / sideways vs 1.0× NATR(14). Fuel and RSI bins on trendline families also report Forming (still inside the lines).

Results (1h)

Return distribution

All figures below are for Descending Triangle on the 1h timeframe only (n=236). Timeframes are never pooled — a 15m candle horizon is not comparable to 1d. Mean return 1.478%, median 1.087%; exclusive breakout / breakdown / sideways 72.46% / 26.69% / 0.85%. Mean MFE / MAE 5.649% / -2.72%.

Figure 1. 20-candle close return (%) for Descending Triangle on 1h, clipped to ±16%.

Wick max-up / max-down over the same 20-candle window, expressed as NATR multiples. Sideways is not a spike at 0.

Figure 1b. 20-candle wick max-up (×NATR) on 1h.

Figure 1c. 20-candle wick max-down (×NATR).

Distribution statistics

  • Mean return: 1.478%
  • Median: 1.087% (P25 -1.371 · P75 3.192)
  • Std. deviation: 5.654%
  • Win rate (ret > 0): 63.98%
  • Mean MFE / MAE: 5.649% / -2.72%
  • Median max-up / max-down (×NATR): 2.285 / -0.826
  • Sideways rate: 0.85% (pattern-end unresolved; not a zero-move class; see ×NATR histograms)
  • Both-cleared (pre-label): 24.58%

Fuel volume & momentum scores

Fuel volume and momentum scores below use only Descending Triangle snapshots on 1h. Zones match the live Fuel gauge (Dead Water / Organic Flow / The Powder Keg); each zone reports mean max-up / max-down over the next 20 1h candles.

Active timeframe: 1h — switch with the buttons under the pattern title.

Breakout Breakdown Sideways Forming

volume_score (n=552; forming + terminal snapshots)

Within Descending Triangle (1h), 552 snapshots with recorded Fuel volume score (closed-candle volume vs SMA20 at the live snapshot) are partitioned into Fuel gauge zones (Dead Water / Organic Flow / The Powder Keg). Exclusive breakout rates run from 65.08% in Dead Water (0.00–0.33) to 65.82% in The Powder Keg (0.67–1.00), a negligible difference of +0.74 percentage points. Breakdown rates shift from 26.98% to 25.32% (-1.66 percentage points), while sideways incidence moves from 0.80% to 0.00% (-0.80 percentage points). Forming (still inside the lines) moves from 7.14% to 8.86% (+1.72 percentage points). Expected-direction hit rate moves from 26.98% in Dead Water to 25.32% in The Powder Keg (-1.66 percentage points; modest shift). Mean maximum favorable excursion is highest in Organic Flow (6.135%), compared with 4.260% in Dead Water and 5.330% in The Powder Keg. The value histogram is unimodal around mid-range values (peak bin ≈ 15% of observed mass). Taken together, these contrasts speak to association strength rather than causal effect: conditioning on Fuel volume score (closed-candle volume vs SMA20 at the live snapshot) alone does not isolate a trading rule.

Dead Water0.00–0.33
n=252
BO 65.08% BD 26.98% SW 0.8% FM 7.14%
Organic Flow0.34–0.66
n=221
BO 64.71% BD 28.51% SW -0.01% FM 6.79%
The Powder Keg0.67–1.00
n=79
BO 65.82% BD 25.32% SW 0.0% FM 8.86%

Descending Triangle outcomes by Fuel volume score.

Empirical density of volume score for this timeframe (1st–99th percentile clip).

Distribution of Fuel volume score.

volume_score Fuel-zone stats (max-up / max-down).
Zone Range n Mean ↑ Mean ↓ BO % BD % SW % FM %
Dead Water 0.00–0.33 252 4.26 -3.225 65.08 26.98 0.8 7.14
Organic Flow 0.34–0.66 221 6.135 -2.5 64.71 28.51 -0.01 6.79
The Powder Keg 0.67–1.00 79 5.33 -2.87 65.82 25.32 0.0 8.86

momentum_score (n=552; forming + terminal snapshots)

Within Descending Triangle (1h), 552 snapshots with recorded Fuel momentum score (RSI / ROC energy at the live snapshot, not direction) are partitioned into Fuel gauge zones (Dead Water / Organic Flow / The Powder Keg). Exclusive breakout rates run from 68.11% in Organic Flow (0.34–0.66) to 42.42% in The Powder Keg (0.67–1.00), a substantial difference of -25.69 percentage points. Breakdown rates shift from 24.90% to 45.45% (+20.55 percentage points), while sideways incidence moves from 0.41% to 0.01% (-0.40 percentage points). Forming (still inside the lines) moves from 6.58% to 12.12% (+5.54 percentage points). Expected-direction hit rate moves from 24.90% in Organic Flow to 45.45% in The Powder Keg (+20.55 percentage points; substantial shift). Mean maximum favorable excursion is highest in Organic Flow (5.166%), compared with 5.166% in Organic Flow and 5.146% in The Powder Keg. The value histogram is concentrated toward lower Fuel momentum score readings (peak bin ≈ 37% of mass), with a thinner right-hand tail. Taken together, these contrasts speak to association strength rather than causal effect: conditioning on Fuel momentum score (RSI / ROC energy at the live snapshot, not direction) alone does not isolate a trading rule.

Organic Flow0.34–0.66
n=486
BO 68.11% BD 24.9% SW 0.41% FM 6.58%
The Powder Keg0.67–1.00
n=66
BO 42.42% BD 45.45% SW 0.01% FM 12.12%

Descending Triangle outcomes by Fuel momentum score.

Empirical density of momentum score for this timeframe (1st–99th percentile clip).

Distribution of Fuel momentum score.

momentum_score Fuel-zone stats (max-up / max-down).
Zone Range n Mean ↑ Mean ↓ BO % BD % SW % FM %
Organic Flow 0.34–0.66 486 5.166 -2.785 68.11 24.9 0.41 6.58
The Powder Keg 0.67–1.00 66 5.146 -3.61 42.42 45.45 0.01 12.12

Feature distributions vs max-up / max-down

Feature bins below use only Descending Triangle snapshots on 1h. Each bin reports mean max-up (MFE) and mean max-down (MAE) over the next 20 1h candles.

Active timeframe: 1h — switch with the buttons under the pattern title.

Breakout Breakdown Sideways Forming

rsi_14 (n=552; forming + terminal snapshots)

Within Descending Triangle (1h), 552 snapshots with recorded 14-period Relative Strength Index at the live snapshot are split into feature quartiles. Exclusive breakout rates run from 62.25% in the lowest quartile (30–50; 30–50) to 69.90% in the highest (50–70; 50–70), a substantial difference of +7.65 percentage points. Breakdown rates shift from 32.39% to 18.37% (-14.02 percentage points), while sideways incidence moves from 0.29% to 0.51% (+0.22 percentage points). Forming (still inside the lines) moves from 5.07% to 11.22% (+6.15 percentage points). Expected-direction hit rate moves from 32.39% in 30–50 to 18.37% in 50–70 (-14.02 percentage points; substantial shift). Mean maximum favorable excursion is highest in 30–50 (5.297%), compared with 5.297% in 30–50 and 4.933% in 50–70. The value histogram is unimodal around mid-range values (peak bin ≈ 11% of observed mass). Taken together, these contrasts speak to association strength rather than causal effect: conditioning on 14-period Relative Strength Index at the live snapshot alone does not isolate a trading rule.

30–50
n=355
BO 62.25% BD 32.39% SW 0.29% FM 5.07%
50–70
n=196
BO 69.9% BD 18.37% SW 0.51% FM 11.22%

Descending Triangle outcomes by rsi 14.

The histogram shows the empirical density of rsi 14 for this timeframe (1st–99th percentile clip where continuous).

Distribution of 14-period Relative Strength Index at the live snapshot.

rsi_14 bin stats (max-up / max-down).
Bin Range n Mean ↑ Mean ↓ BO % BD % SW % FM %
30–50 30–50 355 5.297 -2.782 62.25 32.39 0.29 5.07
50–70 50–70 196 4.933 -3.069 69.9 18.37 0.51 11.22

geom_height (n=236; last snapshot per formation)

Within Descending Triangle (1h), 236 snapshots with recorded pattern height (price span of the formation) are partitioned into log-transformed mean ± σ bands (below typical / typical / elevated / extreme). Exclusive breakout rates run from 79.41% in Below typical (1.41 – 4.24) to 66.67% in Elevated (16.2 – 30), a substantial difference of -12.74 percentage points. Breakdown rates shift from 20.59% to 27.27% (+6.68 percentage points), while sideways incidence moves from 0.00% to 6.06% (+6.06 percentage points). Expected-direction hit rate moves from 20.59% in Below typical to 27.27% in Elevated (+6.68 percentage points; substantial shift). Mean maximum favorable excursion is highest in Elevated (5.874%), compared with 3.695% in Below typical and 5.874% in Elevated. The value histogram is concentrated toward lower pattern height readings (peak bin ≈ 22% of mass), with a thinner right-hand tail. Taken together, these contrasts speak to association strength rather than causal effect: conditioning on pattern height (price span of the formation) alone does not isolate a trading rule.

Below typical1.41 – 4.24
n=34
BO 79.41% BD 20.59% SW 0.0%
Typical4.24 – 16.2
n=164
BO 71.34% BD 28.66% SW -0.0%
Elevated16.2 – 30
n=33
BO 66.67% BD 27.27% SW 6.06%

Descending Triangle outcomes by height.

The histogram shows the empirical density of height for this timeframe (1st–99th percentile clip where continuous).

Distribution of pattern height.

geom_height bin stats (max-up / max-down).
Bin Range n Mean ↑ Mean ↓ BO % BD % SW %
Below typical 1.41 – 4.24 34 3.695 -1.544 79.41 20.59 0.0
Typical 4.24 – 16.2 164 5.513 -2.753 71.34 28.66 -0.0
Elevated 16.2 – 30 33 5.874 -3.743 66.67 27.27 6.06

geom_width (n=236; last snapshot per formation)

Within Descending Triangle (1h), 236 snapshots with recorded pattern width (duration in candles) are partitioned into mean ± σ bands (below typical / typical / elevated / extreme). Exclusive breakout rates run from 75.00% in Below typical (23 – 50.7) to 62.86% in Elevated (100 – 125), a substantial difference of -12.14 percentage points. Breakdown rates shift from 25.00% to 37.14% (+12.14 percentage points), while sideways incidence moves from 0.00% to 0.00% (0.00 percentage points). Expected-direction hit rate moves from 25.00% in Below typical to 37.14% in Elevated (+12.14 percentage points; substantial shift). Mean maximum favorable excursion is highest in Below typical (6.538%), compared with 6.538% in Below typical and 4.459% in Elevated. The value histogram is unimodal around mid-range values (peak bin ≈ 11% of observed mass). Taken together, these contrasts speak to association strength rather than causal effect: conditioning on pattern width (duration in candles) alone does not isolate a trading rule.

Below typical23 – 50.7
n=36
BO 75.0% BD 25.0% SW 0.0%
Typical50.7 – 100
n=160
BO 74.38% BD 24.38% SW 1.24%
Elevated100 – 125
n=35
BO 62.86% BD 37.14% SW 0.0%

Descending Triangle outcomes by width.

The histogram shows the empirical density of width for this timeframe (1st–99th percentile clip where continuous).

Distribution of pattern width.

geom_width bin stats (max-up / max-down).
Bin Range n Mean ↑ Mean ↓ BO % BD % SW %
Below typical 23 – 50.7 36 6.538 -1.925 75.0 25.0 0.0
Typical 50.7 – 100 160 5.652 -2.754 74.38 24.38 1.24
Elevated 100 – 125 35 4.459 -3.5 62.86 37.14 0.0

extension_progress (n=552; forming + terminal snapshots)

Within Descending Triangle (1h), 552 snapshots with recorded extension candles divided by original formation width are partitioned into log-transformed mean ± σ bands (below typical / typical / elevated / extreme). Exclusive breakout rates run from 63.60% in Typical (-0.0106 – 0.124) to 80.65% in Extreme (0.199 – 0.404), a substantial difference of +17.05 percentage points. Breakdown rates shift from 27.62% to 19.35% (-8.27 percentage points), while sideways incidence moves from 0.41% to 0.00% (-0.41 percentage points). Forming (still inside the lines) moves from 8.37% to 0.00% (-8.37 percentage points). Expected-direction hit rate moves from 27.62% in Typical to 19.35% in Extreme (-8.27 percentage points; substantial shift). Mean maximum favorable excursion is highest in Elevated (5.259%), compared with 5.249% in Typical and 3.725% in Extreme. The value histogram is concentrated toward lower extension candles divided by original formation width readings (peak bin ≈ 45% of mass), with a thinner right-hand tail. Taken together, these contrasts speak to association strength rather than causal effect: conditioning on extension candles divided by original formation width alone does not isolate a trading rule.

Typical-0.0106 – 0.124
n=478
BO 63.6% BD 27.62% SW 0.41% FM 8.37%
Elevated0.124 – 0.199
n=43
BO 69.77% BD 30.23% SW 0.0% FM 0.0%
Extreme0.199 – 0.404
n=31
BO 80.65% BD 19.35% SW -0.0% FM 0.0%

Descending Triangle outcomes by Formation age.

The histogram shows the empirical density of Formation age for this timeframe (1st–99th percentile clip where continuous).

Distribution of extension candles divided by original formation width.

extension_progress bin stats (max-up / max-down).
Bin Range n Mean ↑ Mean ↓ BO % BD % SW % FM %
Typical -0.0106 – 0.124 478 5.249 -2.936 63.6 27.62 0.41 8.37
Elevated 0.124 – 0.199 43 5.259 -2.59 69.77 30.23 0.0 0.0
Extreme 0.199 – 0.404 31 3.725 -2.493 80.65 19.35 -0.0 0.0

geom_resistance_slope (n=236; last snapshot per formation)

Within Descending Triangle (1h), 236 snapshots with recorded slope of the resistance line bounding the pattern are split into feature quartiles. Exclusive breakout rates run from 72.88% in the lowest quartile (Q1; -0.499 – -0.111) to 77.97% in the highest (Q4; -0.0439 – -0.0104), a substantial difference of +5.09 percentage points. Breakdown rates shift from 23.73% to 22.03% (-1.70 percentage points), while sideways incidence moves from 3.39% to 0.00% (-3.39 percentage points). Expected-direction hit rate moves from 23.73% in Q1 to 22.03% in Q4 (-1.70 percentage points; modest shift). Mean maximum favorable excursion is highest in Q1 (6.778%), compared with 6.778% in Q1 and 4.664% in Q4. The value histogram piles up toward higher readings (peak bin ≈ 20% of mass). Taken together, these contrasts speak to association strength rather than causal effect: conditioning on slope of the resistance line bounding the pattern alone does not isolate a trading rule.

Q1-0.499 – -0.111
n=59
BO 72.88% BD 23.73% SW 3.39%
Q2-0.111 – -0.0721
n=59
BO 72.88% BD 27.12% SW 0.0%
Q3-0.0721 – -0.0439
n=59
BO 66.1% BD 33.9% SW 0.0%
Q4-0.0439 – -0.0104
n=59
BO 77.97% BD 22.03% SW 0.0%

Descending Triangle outcomes by resistance slope.

The histogram shows the empirical density of resistance slope for this timeframe (1st–99th percentile clip where continuous).

Distribution of slope of the resistance line bounding the pattern.

geom_resistance_slope bin stats (max-up / max-down).
Bin Range n Mean ↑ Mean ↓ BO % BD % SW %
Q1 -0.499 – -0.111 59 6.778 -3.058 72.88 23.73 3.39
Q2 -0.111 – -0.0721 59 4.824 -2.595 72.88 27.12 0.0
Q3 -0.0721 – -0.0439 59 6.331 -2.991 66.1 33.9 0.0
Q4 -0.0439 – -0.0104 59 4.664 -2.236 77.97 22.03 0.0

btc_dist14_mean (n=552; forming + terminal snapshots)

Within Descending Triangle (1h), 552 snapshots with recorded BTC last-14 mean distance are split into feature quartiles. Exclusive breakout rates run from 66.67% in the lowest quartile (Q1; -4.15 – -0.333) to 64.49% in the highest (Q4; 0.347 – 2.71), a modest difference of -2.18 percentage points. Breakdown rates shift from 22.46% to 31.16% (+8.70 percentage points), while sideways incidence moves from 0.73% to 0.00% (-0.73 percentage points). Forming (still inside the lines) moves from 10.14% to 4.35% (-5.79 percentage points). Expected-direction hit rate moves from 22.46% in Q1 to 31.16% in Q4 (+8.70 percentage points; substantial shift). Mean maximum favorable excursion is highest in Q1 (6.190%), compared with 6.190% in Q1 and 6.083% in Q4. The value histogram is unimodal around mid-range values (peak bin ≈ 24% of observed mass). Taken together, these contrasts speak to association strength rather than causal effect: conditioning on BTC last-14 mean distance alone does not isolate a trading rule.

Q1-4.15 – -0.333
n=138
BO 66.67% BD 22.46% SW 0.73% FM 10.14%
Q2-0.333 – -0.00844
n=139
BO 59.71% BD 31.65% SW 0.01% FM 8.63%
Q3-0.00844 – 0.347
n=137
BO 69.34% BD 24.09% SW 0.73% FM 5.84%
Q40.347 – 2.71
n=138
BO 64.49% BD 31.16% SW 0.0% FM 4.35%

Descending Triangle outcomes by btc mean.

The histogram shows the empirical density of btc mean for this timeframe (1st–99th percentile clip where continuous).

Distribution of BTC last-14 mean distance.

btc_dist14_mean bin stats (max-up / max-down).
Bin Range n Mean ↑ Mean ↓ BO % BD % SW % FM %
Q1 -4.15 – -0.333 138 6.19 -3.059 66.67 22.46 0.73 10.14
Q2 -0.333 – -0.00844 139 3.69 -3.037 59.71 31.65 0.01 8.63
Q3 -0.00844 – 0.347 137 4.699 -2.456 69.34 24.09 0.73 5.84
Q4 0.347 – 2.71 138 6.083 -2.98 64.49 31.16 0.0 4.35

current_scale_number (n=552; forming + terminal snapshots)

Within Descending Triangle (1h), 552 snapshots with recorded position in the live channel (0 at support, 1 at resistance, >1 breakout) are split into feature quartiles. Exclusive breakout rates run from 39.13% in the lowest quartile (Q1; -18.5 – 0.381) to 92.75% in the highest (Q4; 1.03 – 164), a substantial difference of +53.62 percentage points. Breakdown rates shift from 52.90% to 6.52% (-46.38 percentage points), while sideways incidence moves from 0.00% to 0.73% (+0.73 percentage points). Forming (still inside the lines) moves from 7.97% to 0.00% (-7.97 percentage points). Expected-direction hit rate moves from 52.90% in Q1 to 6.52% in Q4 (-46.38 percentage points; substantial shift). Mean maximum favorable excursion is highest in Q2 (6.929%), compared with 4.921% in Q1 and 5.809% in Q4. The value histogram is unimodal around mid-range values (peak bin ≈ 50% of observed mass). Taken together, these contrasts speak to association strength rather than causal effect: conditioning on position in the live channel (0 at support, 1 at resistance, >1 breakout) alone does not isolate a trading rule.

Q1-18.5 – 0.381
n=138
BO 39.13% BD 52.9% SW -0.0% FM 7.97%
Q20.381 – 0.876
n=138
BO 77.54% BD 16.67% SW 0.72% FM 5.07%
Q30.876 – 1.03
n=138
BO 50.72% BD 33.33% SW 0.01% FM 15.94%
Q41.03 – 164
n=138
BO 92.75% BD 6.52% SW 0.73% FM 0.0%

Descending Triangle outcomes by Pattern scale.

The histogram shows the empirical density of Pattern scale for this timeframe (1st–99th percentile clip where continuous).

Distribution of position in the live channel.

current_scale_number bin stats (max-up / max-down).
Bin Range n Mean ↑ Mean ↓ BO % BD % SW % FM %
Q1 -18.5 – 0.381 138 4.921 -3.566 39.13 52.9 -0.0 7.97
Q2 0.381 – 0.876 138 6.929 -1.745 77.54 16.67 0.72 5.07
Q3 0.876 – 1.03 138 2.996 -4.286 50.72 33.33 0.01 15.94
Q4 1.03 – 164 138 5.809 -1.939 92.75 6.52 0.73 0.0

extension_candle_offset (n=552; forming + terminal snapshots)

Within Descending Triangle (1h), 552 snapshots with recorded extension candles added since first detection are partitioned into log-transformed mean ± σ bands (below typical / typical / elevated / extreme). Exclusive breakout rates run from 59.15% in Below typical (0 – 0.0467) to 65.66% in Elevated (7.29 – 22.3), a substantial difference of +6.51 percentage points. Breakdown rates shift from 26.81% to 30.30% (+3.49 percentage points), while sideways incidence moves from 0.00% to 1.01% (+1.01 percentage points). Forming (still inside the lines) moves from 14.04% to 3.03% (-11.01 percentage points). Expected-direction hit rate moves from 26.81% in Below typical to 30.30% in Elevated (+3.49 percentage points; material shift). Mean maximum favorable excursion is highest in Typical (5.745%), compared with 4.969% in Below typical and 4.433% in Elevated. The value histogram is concentrated toward lower extension candles added since first detection readings (peak bin ≈ 47% of mass), with a thinner right-hand tail. Taken together, these contrasts speak to association strength rather than causal effect: conditioning on extension candles added since first detection alone does not isolate a trading rule.

Below typical0 – 0.0467
n=235
BO 59.15% BD 26.81% SW 0.0% FM 14.04%
Typical0.0467 – 7.29
n=213
BO 70.42% BD 27.23% SW 0.47% FM 1.88%
Elevated7.29 – 22.3
n=99
BO 65.66% BD 30.3% SW 1.01% FM 3.03%

Descending Triangle outcomes by Extension candles.

The histogram shows the empirical density of Extension candles for this timeframe (1st–99th percentile clip where continuous).

Distribution of extension candles added since first detection.

extension_candle_offset bin stats (max-up / max-down).
Bin Range n Mean ↑ Mean ↓ BO % BD % SW % FM %
Below typical 0 – 0.0467 235 4.969 -3.01 59.15 26.81 0.0 14.04
Typical 0.0467 – 7.29 213 5.745 -2.772 70.42 27.23 0.47 1.88
Elevated 7.29 – 22.3 99 4.433 -2.795 65.66 30.3 1.01 3.03

Timeframe comparison

Side-by-side comparison across timeframes for Descending Triangle. Each column is an independent sample — use it to contrast horizons, not as a pooled average.

Table. Descending Triangle comparative outcomes by timeframe.
TF n Mean ↑ Mean ↓ ↑/|↓| Hit % BO % BD % SW %
15m 135 2.141 -1.365 1.568 25.93 71.85 25.93 2.22
1h 236 5.649 -2.72 2.077 26.69 72.46 26.69 0.85
4h 89 13.402 -4.831 2.774 31.46 67.42 31.46 1.12
1d 15 14.058 -20.491 0.686 53.33 46.67 53.33 0.0

Feature correlations

Within Descending Triangle on 1h, the strongest absolute Spearman correlate of breakout is current_scale_number (ρ = 0.6432***). Ranks use pattern geometry, momentum, and BTC-context features. * p<0.05 · ** p<0.01 · *** p<0.001.

vs Breakout success

Table 1. Top breakout correlates.
Featureρpn
current_scale_number *** 0.6432 0.0 236
rsi_14 *** 0.6142 0.0 236
momentum_score *** -0.3284 0.0 236
btc_dist14_mean *** -0.2935 0.000005 236
geom_width -0.1307 0.044905 236
volume_score -0.0844 0.196133 236
geom_height -0.0676 0.301094 236
extension_progress 0.0499 0.445322 236
extension_candle_offset 0.0101 0.87787 236
geom_resistance_slope 0.0019 0.977087 236

vs Breakdown success

Table 2. Top breakdown correlates.
Featureρpn
current_scale_number *** -0.6426 0.0 236
rsi_14 *** -0.6241 0.0 236
momentum_score *** 0.3288 0.0 236
btc_dist14_mean *** 0.3022 0.000002 236
geom_width 0.124 0.057096 236
volume_score 0.1023 0.117082 236
extension_progress -0.0434 0.507226 236
geom_height 0.039 0.550886 236
geom_resistance_slope 0.0205 0.754556 236
extension_candle_offset -0.006 0.927015 236
Table 3. Top correlates of 20-candle close return.
Featureρpn
rsi_14 *** 0.2845 0.000009 236
current_scale_number *** 0.2621 0.000046 236
geom_width ** -0.2197 0.000678 236
btc_dist14_mean ** -0.2079 0.001319 236
geom_height -0.0578 0.376612 236
extension_progress 0.0525 0.422224 236
momentum_score -0.0435 0.506152 236
volume_score 0.0361 0.581043 236
extension_candle_offset -0.0345 0.597745 236
geom_resistance_slope -0.0262 0.689212 236
Table 3b. Top correlates of 20-candle max-up (MFE).
Featureρpn
rsi_14 *** 0.3029 0.000002 236
current_scale_number *** 0.257 0.000065 236
geom_resistance_slope * -0.1701 0.008834 236
btc_dist14_mean -0.1457 0.025246 236
geom_width -0.1452 0.025749 236
geom_height 0.1269 0.051553 236
extension_candle_offset -0.0808 0.216406 236
volume_score 0.051 0.435511 236
extension_progress -0.0296 0.651461 236
momentum_score -0.0006 0.993113 236
Table 3c. Top correlates of 20-candle max-down (MAE).
Featureρpn
current_scale_number *** 0.3857 0.0 236
rsi_14 *** 0.3121 0.000001 236
momentum_score ** -0.2143 0.000924 236
btc_dist14_mean ** -0.2098 0.001186 236
geom_width ** -0.1963 0.00245 236
geom_height ** -0.1954 0.002573 236
extension_candle_offset -0.0606 0.354266 236
geom_resistance_slope 0.0334 0.6099 236
extension_progress 0.0188 0.774083 236
volume_score 0.0031 0.962074 236

Outcome mix by timeframe

Exclusive breakout / breakdown / sideways rates by candle timeframe (hover for exact values).

Figure 2. Stacked exclusive outcome rates by timeframe.

Timeframe breakdown

Table 6. Descending Triangle split by timeframe.
TF n Coins Hit % BO % BD % SW % Med % Mean %
15m 135 115 25.93 71.85 25.93 2.22 0.367 0.277
1h 236 189 26.69 72.46 26.69 0.85 1.087 1.478
4h 89 79 31.46 67.42 31.46 1.12 1.959 3.779
1d 15 15 53.33 46.67 53.33 0.0 -7.046 -4.488

Methods note

Shared methodology (expand)

Pattern end for this study: For Descending Triangle, pattern end is the last candle still inside the projected trendline channel after formation: closes may not breach support/resistance by more than 0.5× NATR(14). Features and the next-20-candle outcomes are taken from that last in-band candle, and breakout/breakdown is evaluated on confirmed closes.

Outcomes use mutually exclusive classes over the next 20 candles. Headline KPIs and geometry bins are pattern-end: breakout, breakdown, or sideways vs 1.0× NATR(14). On trendline families, Fuel / RSI bins add Forming (still inside the lines). Correlations are Spearman with two-sided p-values. See the research hub methods for universe, how every pattern family defines pattern end, dedupe keys, and limitations.

Exclusive class: upside clears +1× natr_14 within 20 candles before downside.
Exclusive class: downside clears −1× natr_14 within 20 candles before upside.
Pattern-end (terminal) unresolved class: neither +1× nor −1× natr_14 cleared within 20 candles after the breached candle. Headline KPIs, ranks, and geometry bins use this sample; Forming is not in that formula. Sideways is not a zero-move class; typical wick travel inside the bands is reported as ×NATR max-up / max-down.
Trendline families only, and only on non-terminal snapshots still inside the lines: neither side tagged within 20 candles. Age-balanced Fuel / RSI / point-in-time bins add Forming so four exclusive classes sum to 100%. Forming-only trees (live still-inside matches) use breakout + breakdown + forming = 100%.
$$\mathrm{Sideways}\iff\text{terminal and no }\pm 1.0\times\mathrm{NATR}\text{ tag within }20\text{ candles}$$

Labels use ground-truth path outcomes (outcome_label / target_first_hit from full kline OHLC path). Trendline families evaluate confirmed candle closes against projected support/resistance bands. Unresolved non-terminal trendline snapshots are Forming; unresolved terminal snapshots are Sideways. Double/triple bottoms require breaking the bottom support floor for breakdown. Head & shoulders evaluate from neckline confirmation. Same-bar dual clears resolve via open proximity, then candle body polarity, then return sign. Pattern-end headline rates: breakout + breakdown + sideways = 100%. Forming+terminal Fuel/RSI bins: breakout + breakdown + sideways + forming = 100%.

Limitations & disclosures

  1. This is a historical, in-sample statistical study — not a forward-tested trading strategy. It excludes exchange fees, funding rates, slippage, and execution timing, all of which affect real trading outcomes. A fixed temporal holdout split is reported in methodology for transparency; thresholds are not retuned on the holdout window.
  2. The dataset covers Binance USD-M perpetual futures only. Results may not generalize to spot markets, other exchanges, or lower-liquidity assets with different microstructure.
  3. Confidence and recency filters were switched off while building the dataset, so figures reflect the detector’s raw geometric/RSI trigger rate — not the filtered, higher-conviction signals surfaced live to subscribers.
  4. Exclusive breakout / breakdown / sideways labels use the first ±1.0× NATR threshold (or pattern-specific structural boundary) touched in candle order over the 20-candle forward horizon (target_first_hit / outcome_label). Trendline families evaluate confirmed candle closes against projected support/resistance bands. Double/triple bottoms require breaking the bottom support floor for breakdown. Head & shoulders evaluate from neckline confirmation. Same-bar dual clears resolve via open gap / nearer threshold from open, then candle body direction.
  5. Overlapping detections were deduplicated on formation start (longest span kept), but different pattern families can still fire on the same underlying move, so correlated market regimes (e.g. one broad rally) can inflate sample counts across several pattern types simultaneously.
  6. Spearman tables use Benjamini–Hochberg FDR q-values; stars also require |ρ| ≥ 0.05. Large samples can still make tiny associations look noteworthy without being economically meaningful. Primary correlations and lifts are within a single timeframe; multi-TF pooled tables are exploratory only.

Glossary

Bull flag / bullish flag
Common search names for the bullish flag chart pattern: a sharp advance (the pole) followed by a downward-sloping or rectangular consolidation. See the Bullish Flag pattern study for breakout statistics.
Head and shoulders pattern
A three-peak reversal pattern (left shoulder, head, right shoulder) with a neckline. Traders search this as “head and shoulders crypto” as well as the full name. See the Head and Shoulders study for exclusive breakdown rates.
Falling wedge bullish
A common query for the falling wedge: converging down-sloping trendlines often treated as a bullish continuation or reversal. See the Falling Wedge study.
Cup and handle pattern
A rounded-bottom continuation pattern with a shallow handle. Also searched as “cup and handle crypto”. See the Cup and Handle study for breakout rates.
Fuel gauge zones
Fixed partitions of Fuel component scores: Dead Water (0.00–0.33), Organic Flow (0.34–0.66), and The Powder Keg (0.67–1.00). Used for Fuel volume/momentum outcome charts on research pages.
NATR(14) & Formation Avg NATR
Normalized Average True Range over 14 periods — average candle range as a percentage of price. In this research, formation average NATR (natr_pattern_avg) is measured across the full pattern span to size breakout/breakdown thresholds (1.0× NATR) relative to market volatility rather than fixed percentages.
\[\mathrm{ATR}_{14}=\mathrm{AverageTrueRange}(H,L,C,14)\]
\[\mathrm{NATR}_{14}=\dfrac{\mathrm{ATR}_{14}}{C_{t}}\times 100\]
\[\mathrm{NATR}_{\mathrm{avg}}=\dfrac{1}{N}\sum_{i=\mathrm{start}}^{\mathrm{end}}\mathrm{NATR}_{14,i}\]
Breakout / breakdown / sideways
Mutually exclusive outcome classes over the 20-candle forward horizon. Headline KPIs, ranks, and pattern-end geometry bins use breakout, breakdown, and sideways (sum to 100%). Breakout means the +1.0× NATR(14) upside threshold (or resistance trendline/neckline) is touched first; breakdown is the downside class; sideways on those samples means the pattern-end candle already tagged a line but neither ±1.0× NATR printed in the next 20 candles. Sideways is not a zero-move class: typical inside-band wick travel is the sideways ×NATR max-up / max-down. Trendline families evaluate confirmed candle closes.
\[\mathrm{Sideways}\iff\text{terminal and no }\pm 1.0\times\mathrm{NATR}\text{ tag within }20\text{ candles}\]
Forming (trendline still inside)
Fourth exclusive class on trendline families (triangles, wedges, channels, flags, pennants) for snapshots that are not the last candle of the formation: price is still between the lines and neither side tagged in the next 20 candles. Age-balanced Fuel / RSI / point-in-time bins report breakout + breakdown + sideways + forming = 100%. Forming-only trees (live still-inside matches) use breakout + breakdown + forming = 100%. Non-trendline patterns have forming_rate 0.
\[\mathrm{Forming}\iff\text{still inside trendlines and no }\pm 1.0\times\mathrm{NATR}\text{ tag within }20\text{ candles}\]
Both-cleared rate
Share of windows where both +1.0× and −1.0× NATR thresholds were cleared within the 20-candle forward horizon before the exclusive label was assigned. High both-cleared rates indicate volatile two-sided windows.
Expected-direction hit rate
For patterns with a directional bias (e.g. bullish patterns expect a breakout, bearish patterns expect a breakdown), this is the exclusive-class rate for that expected side only. Neutral patterns report breakout and breakdown separately.
Spearman ρ (rho)
A rank correlation coefficient between −1 and 1 that measures monotonic association without assuming a linear relationship or normal distribution — appropriate for skewed, fat-tailed return data. Tables emphasize pattern geometry, momentum, and BTC-context features.
p-value, q-value & significance stars
Two-sided Spearman p-values are adjusted with Benjamini–Hochberg FDR (q-values). Stars require q < 0.05 and |ρ| ≥ 0.05 so large-n micro correlations are not marked significant. Always read stars with effect size.
Wilson 95% CI
Outcome rate fields ending in _ci95 are Wilson score intervals for the binomial point estimate. They quantify sampling uncertainty on rates, not trading risk or costs.
Null baseline / temporal holdout
Null baseline shuffles exclusive outcomes within each timeframe to show a chance expected-direction hit band. Temporal holdout compares rates before vs on/after a fixed cutoff (thresholds not retuned on holdout).
MFE / MAE
Maximum Favorable Excursion and Maximum Adverse Excursion — the best and worst price movement recorded within the forward horizon, expressed as a percentage of the snapshot close. MFE÷|MAE| summarizes average upside versus downside excursion magnitude.
\[\mathrm{MFE}=\mathrm{max\_up}_{20c}=\dfrac{\max(H_{t+1},\ldots,H_{t+20})-C_{t}}{C_{t}}\times 100\]
\[\mathrm{MAE}=\mathrm{max\_down}_{20c}=\dfrac{\min(L_{t+1},\ldots,L_{t+20})-C_{t}}{C_{t}}\times 100\]
Timeframe-specific feature bins
On each pattern study, feature distributions are computed separately for 15m, 1h, 4h, and 1d. Use the timeframe control to switch; never treat pooled multi-TF histograms as interchangeable because candle horizons differ.
Feature quartile bins
Numeric features that are not Fuel, RSI, or σ-banded (e.g. slopes, current_scale_number, btc_dist14_mean) are split into quartiles. Each bin reports exclusive breakout, breakdown, and sideways rates plus mean MFE.
Feature typical / elevated bands
geom_width and head-and-shoulders symmetry use mean ± σ bands computed separately per pattern and timeframe: below typical (< μ−σ), typical (μ±σ), elevated (μ+σ to μ+2σ), and extreme (> μ+2σ). Pattern height and extension age use the same labels after a log1p transform so right-tailed size features are not dominated by outliers. Bins are never pooled across timeframes.
Pattern end (snapshot candle)
The single candle where features (RSI, Fuel, BTC context) and the forward 20-candle outcome window are measured. Trendline families use the last close still inside ±0.5× NATR of the projected channel; doubles/triples use a neckline re-touch within ±0.5× NATR; H&S uses the neckline break; cup & handle uses the rim touch after the handle; RSI divergences use the second price extreme. See Data & methodology for the full family list.
BTC regime (btc_dist14_median)
Terciles of BTC last-14 median distance at the live snapshot (btc_weak / btc_mid / btc_strong). Used as a simple proxy for BTC-relative market regime when slicing outcome rates (not in correlation ranks).
volume_score (Fuel volume)
Closed-candle volume vs a 20-period SMA, mapped to 0–1 with a small trend adjustment. Same Fuel Index volume component as the live gauge; open (forming) candle is not used.
\[\mathrm{volume\_ratio}=\dfrac{V_{t}}{\mathrm{SMA}(V,20)}\]
Piecewise base score from volume_ratio:
\[\mathrm{ratio}<0.8:\ \mathrm{base}=\dfrac{\mathrm{ratio}}{0.8}\times 0.25\]
\[0.8\le\mathrm{ratio}\le 1.5:\ \mathrm{base}=0.3+\dfrac{\mathrm{ratio}-0.8}{0.7}\times 0.3\]
\[\mathrm{ratio}>1.5:\ \mathrm{base}=0.6+\min\!\bigl(1,\tfrac{\mathrm{ratio}-1.5}{1.5}\bigr)\times 0.4\]
\[\mathrm{trend\_adj}=\mathrm{clamp}(s_{V}\times 0.15,-0.05,+0.05)\]
\[\mathrm{volume\_score}=\mathrm{clamp}(\mathrm{base}+\mathrm{trend\_adj},\,0,\,1)\]
momentum_score (Fuel momentum)
Direction-agnostic energy score from RSI(14), 3-bar RSI change, and timeframe-specific ROC. Same Fuel Index momentum component as the live gauge.
\[\mathrm{ROC}=\dfrac{C_{t}-C_{t-N}}{C_{t-N}}\]
\[\Delta\mathrm{RSI}_{3}=\mathrm{RSI}_{t}-\mathrm{RSI}_{t-3}\]
ROC lookback N by timeframe: 15m→8, 1h→5, 4h→3, 1d→2.
\[\mathrm{momentum\_score}\in[0,1]\ \text{(RSI/ROC regime map)}\]
rsi_14
14-period Relative Strength Index on the asset close at the live snapshot (forming + terminal; feature_builder: RSIIndicator(close, window=14)).
\[U_{t}=\max(C_{t}-C_{t-1},0),\quad D_{t}=\max(C_{t-1}-C_{t},0)\]
\[\mathrm{RS}=\dfrac{\mathrm{SMA}(U,14)}{\mathrm{SMA}(D,14)}\]
\[\mathrm{RSI}_{14}=100-\dfrac{100}{1+\mathrm{RS}}\]
geom_height
Pattern height as a percentage of price at detection. Exact definition depends on pattern family (trendline channel vs double/triple vs cup vs H&S).
Trendline patterns (wedges / triangles / channels):
\[h_{\mathrm{start}}=R_{\mathrm{start}}-S_{\mathrm{start}}\]
\[\mathrm{geom\_height}=\dfrac{h_{\mathrm{start}}}{S_{\mathrm{start}}}\times 100\]
Double bottom / double top:
\[\mathrm{geom\_height}^{\mathrm{DB}}=\dfrac{N-\min(B_{1},B_{2})}{N}\times 100\]
\[\mathrm{geom\_height}^{\mathrm{DT}}=\dfrac{\max(T_{1},T_{2})-N}{N}\times 100\]
Head & shoulders: absolute head-to-neckline height on the formation.
\[\mathrm{geom\_height}^{\mathrm{HS}}=\lvert h_{\mathrm{head}}\rvert\]
geom_width
Pattern duration in candles from formation start index to end index.
\[\mathrm{geom\_width}=i_{\mathrm{end}}-i_{\mathrm{start}}\]
extension_progress
Extension candles divided by original formation width
geom_resistance_slope
Slope of the fitted resistance / upper trendline, expressed as percent price change per candle.
Fit through resistance pivots:
\[P\approx a+b\,i\]
\[\mathrm{geom\_resistance\_slope}=b_{\%/c}\]
btc_dist14_mean
Mean of BTC last-14 percentage distances (feature_builder dist14_mean on BTC).
\[\delta_{i}=\dfrac{C^{\mathrm{BTC}}_{t-i}-C^{\mathrm{BTC}}_{t}}{C^{\mathrm{BTC}}_{t}}\times 100,\quad i=1,\ldots,14\]
\[\mathrm{btc\_dist14\_mean}=\dfrac{1}{14}\sum_{i=1}^{14}\delta_{i}\]
current_scale_number
Position in the live channel (0 at support, 1 at resistance, >1 breakout)
extension_candle_offset
Extension candles added since first detection

Frequently asked questions

How to trade Descending Triangle using this crypto chart pattern study?

This page reports historical Descending Triangle breakout, breakdown, and sideways rates on Binance USD-M futures. Use the rates, typical travel, and timeframe tables as educational context — not a live trade signal.

Do Descending Triangle chart patterns work?

Descending Triangle was evaluated on 475 deduplicated snapshots across 316 Binance USD-M futures symbols. Exclusive outcomes below show how often the pattern broke out, broke down, or stayed sideways — not a guarantee that any single setup will follow the average.

What is the sample size for Descending Triangle?

Descending Triangle was evaluated on 475 deduplicated snapshots across 316 Binance USD-M futures symbols.

How is the pattern end candle chosen for Descending Triangle?

For Descending Triangle, pattern end is the last candle still inside the projected trendline channel after formation: closes may not breach support/resistance by more than 0.5× NATR(14). Features and the next-20-candle outcomes are taken from that last in-band candle, and breakout/breakdown is evaluated on confirmed closes.

Descending Triangle breakout rate: how often does Descending Triangle break out, break down, or go sideways?

Under a mutually exclusive ±1× NATR / 20-candle classification, breakout was 70.53%, breakdown 28.21%, and sideways 1.26%; expected-direction hit rate was 28.21%.

Which timeframe works best for Descending Triangle in this study?

Among timeframes present, 1d had the highest expected-direction hit rate at 53.33% (n=15).

What feature correlates most with Descending Triangle breakouts?

Within Descending Triangle only, the strongest Spearman correlate of breakout success was current_scale_number (ρ=0.6432***, n=236). Effect sizes remain modest.

Is this financial advice?

No. These are educational historical statistics only. Past pattern outcomes do not guarantee future results.

Watch Descending Triangle live

ChartDatabase scans this pattern across 500+ Binance futures pairs with alerts.

How to cite this study

ChartDatabase Research Team (2026). “Descending Triangle: Breakout & Breakdown Statistics on Binance Futures (n=475).” In What Actually Drives Crypto Chart Pattern Breakouts? ChartDatabase. https://chartdatabase.com/research/descending_triangle/