Strategy review
Supply & Demand Zones (GTF)
Reviewed video: “Supply & Demand Zone strategy (Arun & Sooraj)”
The claim
Mark a demand zone — a tight base followed by an explosive green departure — then buy the first fresh return to it, stop below the base, target 2R. Pitched as winning 70–80% of the time, with the zone getting weaker on every retest and the method working symmetrically on the short side.
How we tested it
Mechanized on 158 quality stocks daily over 8 years with real Zerodha delivery costs, then we isolated each specific claim: win rate at a clean 2:1, fresh vs 2nd vs 3rd-tested zones, weekly+daily confluence, and the symmetric supply-zone short.
The data
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Claimed win % | +75.00 |
| Fresh-zone actual win % | +46.30 |
| 3rd-test win % | +30.30 |
| 3rd-test expectancy (R) | -0.37 |
Our verdict
The most defensible retail strategy we've reviewed, and unusually, two of its five specific claims genuinely hold in the data. Zones really do decay with retests — fresh and 2nd-test entries are positive (+0.11R, +0.12R), but 3rd-and-beyond returns collapse to a 30% win rate and −0.37R: revisited zones are failing zones, and that 'fresh-is-strongest, opposite-of-support/resistance' framing is real. Bigger explosive candles also win more (53% vs 46%). The framework teaches discipline and a real, small positive edge on quality stocks.
But the marquee number is false: the measured fresh-zone win rate is ~46% at a clean 2:1, not 70–80% — about 1.6× oversold. The short side loses (~28% win, −0.51R), so it is not symmetric; only the long, with-trend version is positive. The multi-timeframe 'confluence' setup fired only 3 times in 8 years — unprovable. And the edge is thin and regime-sensitive (negative in 2024) — heavy 0.30% slippage pushes it to breakeven. Trade it for the discipline and the 'never fade a 3rd-tested zone' rule, not for the 80%.
Bottom line
★★½☆☆ 2.5/5