As of 08/26/2025
Indus: 45,418 +135.60 +0.3%
Trans: 15,863 +48.65 +0.3%
Utils: 1,099 +3.41 +0.3%
Nasdaq: 21,544 +94.98 +0.4%
S&P 500: 6,466 +26.62 +0.4%
|
YTD
+6.8%
-0.2%
+11.8%
+11.6%
+9.9%
|
 46,700 or 43,200 by 09/15/202516,300 or 14,800 by 09/01/20251,200 or 1,085 by 09/01/202522,700 or 21,000 by 09/01/20256,700 or 6,300 by 09/01/2025 |
As of 08/26/2025
Indus: 45,418 +135.60 +0.3%
Trans: 15,863 +48.65 +0.3%
Utils: 1,099 +3.41 +0.3%
Nasdaq: 21,544 +94.98 +0.4%
S&P 500: 6,466 +26.62 +0.4%
|
YTD
+6.8%
-0.2%
+11.8%
+11.6%
+9.9%
| |
|
46,700 or 43,200 by 09/15/202516,300 or 14,800 by 09/01/20251,200 or 1,085 by 09/01/202522,700 or 21,000 by 09/01/20256,700 or 6,300 by 09/01/2025 | ||
Updated with new statistics: 8/21/2025.
Do well-shaped chart patterns perform better or worse than ugly ones? This article discusses results of a study to answer that question using double bottom and ugly double bottom chart patterns.
Look at the chart. AB is an ugly double bottom. The two bottoms (A and B) are between 5% and 15% apart in price. They are not as pretty looking (as even in price) as the twin valleys CD.
CD is a traditional looking double bottom, where the two valleys bottom near the same price.
In this study, I wanted to know if bottoms farther apart in price perform better than those closer together.
For all stocks and all patterns in this study, I found that the median price difference between bottoms was 2.5%. I sorted the bottoms into two groups: those with bottom to bottom differences less than or equal to the median versus those patterns with bottoms farther apart than the median. Then I checked the post-breakout performance (rise from the breakout to the ultimate high) of each group.
Result: Patterns at or below the median showed post-breakout rises averaging 35%. Those with bottoms farther apart in price had gains averaging 42%. In other words, ugly patterns outperformed the nicer looking ones.
|
Figure 1 |
I plotted the results of double bottoms as the price difference between bottoms increased. Figure 1 shows the results.
The first column, as an example, shows that when the two bottoms had the same low price (0% difference), the average gain after the breakout was 42%.
However, look at the trend of the remainder of the columns. As the price difference between the two bottoms in double bottoms increased (from 1% to 5%), performance increased. The right column, for example, has bottoms priced more than 4% and less than or equal to 5% apart. The average gain was 63%.
The following table shows the results of performance versus bottom difference for all patterns, double bottoms, and ugly double bottoms.
| Description | All Patterns | Double Bottoms | Ugly Double Bottoms |
| Median bottom to bottom difference | 2.5% | 0.8% | 8.3% |
| Above median: performance | 42% | 42% | 41% |
| Below or equal to median: performance | 35% | 32% | 40% |
Let me explain this table. I found the median (midrange value in a sorted list of results) bottom-to-bottom price difference for all patterns in this study, those related to double bottoms (all types of Adam and Eve) and ugly double bottoms.
I list the median values in the table. Below that are two lines, with results sorted by bottom to bottom price differences above their respective median or equal to or below the median.
For example, I found that the rise from the breakout to the ultimate high of all types of patterns in this study that had bottom to bottom price differences at or below 2.5% was 35%. Those with greater bottom differences scored an average of 42%. In other words, the bigger the bottom to bottom price difference, the better the performing pattern.
I sorted the patterns into two groups, ugly double bottoms and everything else (which is all combinations of Adam and Eve double bottoms).
The double bottoms showed similar results to all patterns but the ugly double bottoms were closer (40% versus 41%).
While I believe it's true that twin bottom patterns with big price differences perform better, there appears to be a limit. If you're looking for two bottoms near the same price, then a big difference between the two bottoms (up to 5%) can give better performance. That's what Figure 1 shows.
|
Figure 2 |
However, as the bottom-to-bottom price difference increases, the performance doesn't change as much. Figure 2 shows this for ugly double bottoms. Ugly double bottoms were selected because the two bottoms were 5% to 15% apart.
As the bottom-to-bottom price difference increases (from 6% to 15%), the resulting performance doesn't change much.
Question: Does the shape of the bottoms matter? Answer: no.
Adam bottoms are often one-day price spikes where Eve is wider and more rounded looking. I thought that Adam & Adam and Eve & Eve double bottoms would perform differently than the pair Adam & Eve and Eve & Adam.
Here's the performance results.
| Description | Adam & Adam | Adam & Eve | Eve & Adam | Eve & Eve |
| Average performance | 32% | 38% | 35% | 43% |
Notice that the mix of Adam and Eve (the two middle cells) nestle between the purebreds, Adam & Adam and Eve & Eve. In other words, the appearance of the two bottoms doesn't affect performance. If it did, we'd see Adam & Adam have performance closer to Eve & Eve.
Do notice the performance difference between AA's 32% average rise to EE's with 43%. These performance numbers are current to August 2025 and may conflict with older results on this website.
I used 1,333 stocks (archived ones that no longer trade and the ones I look at and update daily) and logged the performance results of double bottoms (all combinations of Adam and Eve) and ugly double bottoms. Excluded were patterns that had a breakout in a bear market or didn't have enough data to reach the ultimate high (ran out of data). I logged 9,442 patterns from January 1991 to August 2025.
I collected statistics on the pattern type (Adam, Eve, or ugly), and the difference in the price between the two bottoms versus how far price climbed after the breakout to the ultimate high. The breakout happened when the stock climbed above the top of the chart pattern. The ultimate high was the highest high before price dropped at least 20% or before it closed below the bottom of the pattern (the lower of the two bottoms).
Determination of the type of bottom (Adam or Eve) was done by my computer, automatically, so it's reproducible and not subjective. It's not perfect but it does a good job. Plus, it doesn't take bathroom breaks.
I found the various types of double bottoms manually over the years. The ugly double bottom selection was done automatically (because it was easy to program finding them). I found all adjacent bottoms between two minor lows where the second bottom was at least 5% and no higher than 15% above the prior bottom's low.
-- Thomas Bulkowski
Support this site! Clicking any of the books (below) takes you to
Amazon.com If you buy ANYTHING while there, they pay for the referral.
Legal notice for paid links: "As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases."
|
My Stock Market Books
|
My Novels
|
Never trim your moustache before applying Chapstick.
on 