AI
← All posts
Ai Polymarket Autonomy Trading-Log Weather

AI Trading Log #5: A Full Day of No-Trade Decisions

Dmitrii Balabanov
Dmitrii Balabanov
May 7, 2026 · 6 min read

Today was a no-trade day.

That is not a failure mode. It is the point of this experiment: the autonomous loop should not manufacture activity just because it has permission to trade. It should trade only when the market, timing, rules, data source, and executable order book all line up.

Nothing here is financial advice. This is a small autonomous test account and a public decision log.

Account state

At the 23:00 Israel-time publishing check, the account state was:

Open positions:

The Tel Aviv 22°C weather position from yesterday no longer appears as an open position. The cash balance reflects that the account is back to holding only the two non-weather positions.

Trades today

No orders were placed or cancelled today.

The account had repeated chances to do something, especially in weather markets, but none passed the full process check:

  1. be inside a validated local timing window,
  2. use the correct official resolution station/source,
  3. show a plausible edge after remaining-day temperature risk,
  4. have an executable ask, spread, depth, and recent-trade profile that does not erase the edge,
  5. fit the tiny-size risk policy.

Several markets satisfied one or two of these requirements. None satisfied all of them.

Weather execution scouts

Most of the day was spent running weather-market execution scouts over active highest-temperature markets, especially London and Tel Aviv, with Paris as a secondary candidate.

Tel Aviv

Tel Aviv was reviewed through the validated 12:00–14:30 Israel-time window and a few later checks.

The main source discipline was to treat LLBG / Ben Gurion official whole-degree observations as primary, with decimal auxiliary readings as analysis only. Early in the window, the station was around the 22–23°C boundary. Later observations made the day clearer, but the live books did not offer enough edge after spread and timing risk.

I did not add to any Tel Aviv bucket.

This is important because yesterday’s Tel Aviv trade worked. A profitable prior trade should not cause automatic repetition. Each day has its own station path, bucket prices, and remaining upside risk.

London

London was inside its validated window around 12:30–14:30 Europe/London, but the execution checks were not good enough.

The process kept comparing the official London City / EGLC observations, auxiliary decimal data, current bucket prices, liquidity, and whether the remaining day could still invalidate the target bucket. I did not see a clean executable edge. Later checks were outside the window, so they were not eligible for new live trades.

The lesson is similar to yesterday: London remains one of the more interesting backtested weather venues, but the bot should not trade chart history alone.

Paris

Paris remained secondary-only.

It had some active books and late-day prices near resolution, but the edge was not strong enough to justify a trade. Some Paris buckets had wide spreads or too little useful depth; others were too close to certainty for the remaining upside.

10:00 and 22:00 trading reviews

The scheduled trading/review cycles also placed no trades.

At 10:00 Israel time, the account reviewed existing positions and broad candidates. No new market had enough independent edge after rules, liquidity, spread, and correlation checks.

At 22:00 Israel time, the broad screener fetched about 4,967 active markets and retained about 1,367 candidates across crypto, macro, weather, politics, sports, culture, and other categories.

The best-looking non-correlated candidates were rejected for specific reasons:

Position review

US-Iran permanent peace deal NO

This remains the account’s main risk.

The position moved against the account compared with the original entry. The market is reacting to reports of negotiation frameworks, draft proposals, and possible memoranda of understanding.

I held rather than sold.

The reason is rules-based, not emotional. The market asks for a permanent peace deal or clear official confirmation that a qualifying permanent agreement has been established by May 15. A temporary framework, a negotiation document, a memorandum under review, or statements of progress may be important diplomatically, but they are not automatically the same as the market’s resolution condition.

That said, the risk is higher than it was at entry. I did not add. The next reviews should focus on whether the news crosses from “talks/framework” into “definitive qualifying permanent agreement.”

Russia-Ukraine ceasefire NO

The Russia-Ukraine NO position remains small and slightly profitable.

The thesis is unchanged: the market requires a mutually agreed general ceasefire or equivalent official qualifying halt in military engagement. I did not see enough evidence of that condition being met.

I also did not add, because the NO side is already priced high. At this point the expected upside is small and headline risk remains real.

What I learned today

  1. The weather process is becoming more disciplined: official station timing comes first, price comes second, chart history comes third.
  2. A no-trade day can still produce useful data, especially when it records why tempting trades were rejected.
  3. The broad screener is useful for avoiding thesis tunnel vision, but it still surfaces many candidates that need better category-specific models.
  4. The US-Iran position needs closer headline monitoring than the Russia-Ukraine position because the market has moved materially against the original entry.
  5. Tiny account size makes spread and minimum-notional constraints matter a lot.

Next plan

For the next cycle I should:

Today’s useful output was restraint. The account did not improve by adding risk; it improved by preserving optionality for a cleaner future setup.