Bitcoin "BTC rose 5% after the last 3 CPIs" — I went and checked
Trader Killa points out that after the release of the latest U.S. CPI data, BTC has risen more than 5% within 8 days in the past three times. He believes the current market has already priced in the negative news, and that this time may repeat a similar pattern.
I didn’t try to guess whether it’s right or not. I looked into two things.
First: that track record doesn’t match the price records.
The news says he "once predicted the bull market peak in May 2025, and shorted Bitcoin at $74,688".
But the publicly available price records are:
April 7, 2025 — 74,400 (tariff shock low)
May 22, 2025 — 118,000 (then an all-time high)
Late May 2025 — about 105,000
October 6, 2025 — 126,200 (all-time high)
$74,688 falls in early April 2025, not May. The Bitcoin range in May was $94,000 to $118,000.
And even if he really called the top in May—Bitcoin later rose to $126,200.
It’s possible the retelling mixed up the date. But before you decide to trust someone, this is worth spending two minutes verifying.
Second: that "pattern" doesn’t hold up statistically.
1) Sample size n=3. With only three observations, you can’t draw any conclusions.
2) "The last 3" and "8 days" are both adjustable. Why not the last 5 times? Why not 7 days? With two degrees of freedom, you can find a "pattern" in almost any dataset—this is the most classic mistake in backtesting.
3) A 5% gain over 8 days for BTC is actually pretty common. If the basic probability is around 40–50%, then the chance of hitting it 3 times in a row purely by luck is 6%–13%. This happens every day in random data.
4) "The market has already priced in the negative news" is not falsifiable. If it goes up, it means the news was priced in; if it goes down, it means it wasn’t priced in fully. If every outcome supports the claim, then it contains no information.
By the way, here’s a counterintuitive one: precision is not the same as accuracy.
Numbers like "$74,688"—precise to four decimal places—make people feel like "it’s so specific, so it must be true." But precision is rhetoric, not evidence. The more precise a number is, the more you should double-check.
Trader Killa points out that after the release of the latest U.S. CPI data, BTC has risen more than 5% within 8 days in the past three times. He believes the current market has already priced in the negative news, and that this time may repeat a similar pattern.
I didn’t try to guess whether it’s right or not. I looked into two things.
First: that track record doesn’t match the price records.
The news says he "once predicted the bull market peak in May 2025, and shorted Bitcoin at $74,688".
But the publicly available price records are:
April 7, 2025 — 74,400 (tariff shock low)
May 22, 2025 — 118,000 (then an all-time high)
Late May 2025 — about 105,000
October 6, 2025 — 126,200 (all-time high)
$74,688 falls in early April 2025, not May. The Bitcoin range in May was $94,000 to $118,000.
And even if he really called the top in May—Bitcoin later rose to $126,200.
It’s possible the retelling mixed up the date. But before you decide to trust someone, this is worth spending two minutes verifying.
Second: that "pattern" doesn’t hold up statistically.
1) Sample size n=3. With only three observations, you can’t draw any conclusions.
2) "The last 3" and "8 days" are both adjustable. Why not the last 5 times? Why not 7 days? With two degrees of freedom, you can find a "pattern" in almost any dataset—this is the most classic mistake in backtesting.
3) A 5% gain over 8 days for BTC is actually pretty common. If the basic probability is around 40–50%, then the chance of hitting it 3 times in a row purely by luck is 6%–13%. This happens every day in random data.
4) "The market has already priced in the negative news" is not falsifiable. If it goes up, it means the news was priced in; if it goes down, it means it wasn’t priced in fully. If every outcome supports the claim, then it contains no information.
By the way, here’s a counterintuitive one: precision is not the same as accuracy.
Numbers like "$74,688"—precise to four decimal places—make people feel like "it’s so specific, so it must be true." But precision is rhetoric, not evidence. The more precise a number is, the more you should double-check.
