Merval Downtrend Replay (2001-04-27 to 2001-05-14)
Replay a turbulent 2001 Merval correction spanning 30 daily bars with an 11.8% drawdown and 7 decision points. Step through the simulated day-by-day tape, face 3 critical choices, and receive AI coach feedback on your reasoning.
30 daily bars · 7 decision points · 2001-04 to 2001-05 · Stocks
Key facts
This window spans 47 days with a peak-to-trough drawdown of 11.8% and a 9.0% run-up.
- Max drawdown
- −11.8%
- Max run-up
- +9.0%
- Duration
- 47 days
- Largest single-day move
- −6.2%
- Bars
- 30 Daily bars
- Decision points
- 7
Every figure above is computed programmatically from this replay’s own candle series — no editorial input, no LLM. Methodology: Methodology
The market advances day by day. You only see candles up to the current day — as if you were really there.
At key decision points choose Buy / Trim / Exit / Hold. Each decision advances the timeline by one day.
After settlement you get a six-dimension score and an AI coach review. Your result enters the scenario leaderboard.
Event Replay
What happened — and what it teaches
In April 2001, Argentina's Merval index entered a turbulent phase as the country grappled with mounting economic pressures that would eventually reshape its financial system. The replay scenario captures a specific correction window spanning late April to mid-May, placing participants inside the day-by-day dynamics of a market confronting uncertainty. Seven decision points are embedded across the 30 daily bars, three of which represent critical crossroads where traders must commit to specific actions without the comfort of knowing how the tape will resolve.
The data reveals the deceptive nature of this drawdown. From a close of 456 at the start of the period to 437 at its end, the index recorded a -4.2% decline. Yet this headline figure understates the severity of the intermediate moves: the maximum drawdown reached 11.8%, and the largest single-bar move measured 6.3%. For a participant managing risk in real time, those intraday spikes demanded immediate responses that the eventual settlement failed to foreshadow.
This scenario strips away the clarity of hindsight to test how learners navigate ambiguity. The gap between the modest end-state loss and the deeper intermediate trough challenges assumptions about trend-following versus contrarian positioning. Managing through an 11.8% drawdown while staying aligned with a -4.2% outcome requires discipline, sizing wisdom, and emotional regulation under pressure. The three critical decision nodes become micro-labs for examining risk tolerance and process adherence in environments where a single session can move 6.3% against your book.