Are earlier prices measurably worse than the close?

Why the question matters

Visible line movement can look economically important even when the aggregate value of timing is tiny. This study measures that difference directly.

The advice to wait for the close is among the most repeated in betting, and it had not been tested against realised returns on the same settled selections.

Where it comes from

This note answers question 1 of Publication 001's own "What we would investigate next" section, which asked whether earlier prices are measurably worse than the close. It uses the same sealed fact layer, the same de-vig and consensus methodology, and the same event-clustered interval convention as Publication 001 and as the first Pro Note.

Read Publication 001, free and in full

What a Pro member can do with the answer

1. What the near-zero result rules out

   First Win Pro explains what the near-zero aggregate timing effect rules out, and why a bound is not a demonstration that the difference is exactly zero.

2. Why the result behaves this way

   Why half the sample cannot move at all, and what that means for reading the pooled figure as a per-bet expectation.

3. Why the price-range pattern is not yet actionable

   Why the pattern across closing-price buckets is hypothesis-generating rather than tradeable, and what conditioning on the closing price does to it.

4. Which follow-up would actually test it

   The follow-up studies that would test the interesting possibilities, and the evidence bar each would have to clear.

The note itself carries the measured result, its interval and the guidance above in full. None of those figures appear on this page.

The underlying data is public

Every closing price this note is built from is queryable in the Historical Explorer, free and without an account.

Explore the underlying closing-price data