Palladium Historical Replay: 2017-11 to 2018-05
Replay 120 days of authentic palladium price action from 2017-11-15 to 2018-05-10, when the metal climbed 1.0% through a 19.4% drawdown. Make your own calls at 21 decision points and receive an AI coach review, simulated capital only.
120 daily bars · 21 decision points · 2017-11 to 2018-05 · Commodities
Key facts
This window spans 176 days with a peak-to-trough drawdown of 19.4% and a 15.6% run-up.
- Max drawdown
- −19.4%
- Max run-up
- +15.6%
- Duration
- 176 days
- Largest single-day move
- −6.1%
- Bars
- 120 Daily bars
- Decision points
- 21
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 late 2017 and early 2018, palladium occupied a distinctive corner of the commodity world—tight supply, growing demand from the auto sector, and a US dollar losing ground against major currencies. The replay spans 120 trading days from 2017-11-15 to 2018-05-10, a period when the 2010s commodities narrative included dollar weakness intersecting with inflation concerns. The stakes were clear: participants had to navigate a metal that was fundamentally supported but technically volatile.
The numbers reveal the gap between direction and execution. Palladium closed the 120-day window at 996.1, up just 1.0% from its opening 986.5—a modest net gain wrapped in turbulence. The journey featured a maximum drawdown of 19.4% and a single-day move of 6.1%, meaning the market offered no shortage of stress. Across 21 decision points—seven flagged as critical—traders confronted the challenge of staying disciplined when price action repeatedly tested conviction.
This replay teaches that outcome statistics can mislead without context. A 1.0% return sounds unimpressive, yet surviving a 19.4% drawdown to achieve it required real risk management and emotional control. Participants learn to distinguish between price noise and structural shifts, practice sizing decisions under uncertainty, and reflect on how drawdowns tested their process rather than their forecast accuracy.