Should You Buy Bitcoin More Often During Deeper Drawdowns?
How often should you buy Bitcoin during a dip? We backtested whether buying Bitcoin more frequently during deeper drawdowns — including daily buying during severe drops — produced better historical results than buying once every seven days.
The comparison uses the same drawdown levels and nearly identical invested capital. The main difference is how often each strategy is allowed to buy.
Buying the dip sounds simple: Bitcoin falls, you buy.
But what happens if the price keeps falling?
Should you continue buying at the same pace, or should your purchases become more frequent as the drawdown gets deeper?
We tested exactly that.
Using historical Bitcoin prices, we compared a strategy that always waits seven days between purchases with one that becomes progressively more active during deeper drawdowns.
The two strategies we tested
Both strategies use the same Bitcoin drawdown levels: 30%, 40%, and 50% below the previous all-time high.
They also follow the same purchase-size progression: deeper drawdowns receive larger purchases.
The difference is the cooldown — the minimum number of days before another purchase can be made.
Fixed buying frequency
The strategy always waits seven days, regardless of drawdown depth.
Progressive buying frequency
The deeper Bitcoin falls, the sooner the strategy is allowed to buy again.
How we made the comparison fair
There is an obvious problem with comparing these two strategies directly.
A strategy that is allowed to buy more frequently naturally has more opportunities to deploy capital. If it simply invests more money, comparing final portfolio values tells us very little about whether the buying frequency itself helped.
To make the comparison fair, we adjusted the purchase amounts of the fixed seven-day strategy separately for each backtest period so that its total invested capital was as close as possible to the capital deployed by the progressive strategy.
| Period | Fixed frequency | Progressive | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 year | $1,746 | $1,750 | $4 |
| 3 years | $4,020 | $4,010 | $10 |
| 5 years | $18,916 | $18,930 | $14 |
The differences are small enough that the comparison primarily reflects when the capital was deployed rather than how much capital each strategy received.
Daily vs weekly Bitcoin dip buying: backtest results
We ran the comparison over three different historical periods: one year, three years, and five years.
| Period | Strategy | Invested | Final value | ROI | Max drawdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 year | Fixed 7 / 7 / 7 | $1,746 | $1,995.99 | 14.32% | −20.12% |
| Progressive 7 / 3 / 1 | $1,750 | $2,099.51 | 19.97% | −11.83% | |
| 3 years | Fixed 7 / 7 / 7 | $4,020 | $7,011.38 | 74.41% | −46.94% |
| Progressive 7 / 3 / 1 | $4,010 | $8,261.96 | 106.03% | −48.53% | |
| 5 years | Fixed 7 / 7 / 7 | $18,916 | $52,223.22 | 176.08% | −50.30% |
| Progressive 7 / 3 / 1 | $18,930 | $58,850.11 | 210.88% | −51.79% |
Daily vs weekly Bitcoin buying: the five-year result
The longest backtest makes the difference especially clear.
Over five years, the fixed-frequency strategy invested $18,916, while the progressive strategy invested $18,930 — only $14 more.
Yet their ending portfolio values were:
Portfolio value over time
Both strategies invested approximately the same amount of capital. The progressive strategy was allowed to deploy it faster during deeper Bitcoin drawdowns.
Why could buying more frequently during deep drawdowns help?
The progressive strategy does not try to predict Bitcoin's bottom.
Instead, it changes how quickly capital is deployed depending on how far the price has already fallen from its previous all-time high.
At a 30% drawdown, the strategy remains relatively patient and waits seven days between purchases.
At 40% below the ATH, it can buy every three days.
At a 50% drawdown, it can buy once per day.
More return did not always mean less risk
The progressive strategy produced a higher final value in all three backtests, but it did not reduce maximum drawdown in every period.
| Period | Fixed frequency | Progressive frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 year | −20.12% | −11.83% |
| 3 years | −46.94% | −48.53% |
| 5 years | −50.30% | −51.79% |
Over three and five years, the progressive strategy actually experienced slightly deeper maximum drawdowns.
That makes intuitive sense. Buying more aggressively while the market is falling increases exposure sooner. If Bitcoin continues falling after those purchases, the portfolio can temporarily experience a larger decline.
What this backtest does — and doesn't — tell us
Across the historical periods tested here, buying more frequently during deeper Bitcoin drawdowns produced better ending results than maintaining a fixed seven-day buying interval when total deployed capital was approximately matched.
But that does not mean that 7 / 3 / 1 days is the optimal buying schedule, or that the same approach will outperform in the future.
We did not search through dozens of cooldown combinations to find the one that produced the best historical result. This comparison tests one specific idea: whether buying frequency should increase as the drawdown becomes deeper.
Different market paths, longer bear markets, transaction costs, execution prices, or future Bitcoin behavior could produce very different results.
Buying frequency is only part of the strategy
Before deciding how often to buy, there is another important question: how far should Bitcoin fall before buying begins at all?
We tested Bitcoin drawdowns from 10% to 50% to see how different entry thresholds behaved historically. Read our Bitcoin dip-buying levels backtest.
And if you're deciding between buying during drawdowns and simply investing on a fixed schedule, see our Bitcoin dip buying vs DCA comparison.
Conclusion
The result was consistent across all three periods we tested.
Allowing the strategy to buy more frequently as Bitcoin moved deeper below its all-time high produced a higher final portfolio value than maintaining a fixed seven-day cooldown.
In the five-year test, both strategies invested about $18.9k. The fixed-frequency approach finished at approximately $52.2k, while the progressive approach reached approximately $58.9k.
That does not mean buying every day during a crash will always produce a better result.
But these backtests suggest something worth considering: buying frequency may deserve to change with the depth of the drawdown rather than remaining fixed.
That is the idea we wanted to test — and it is now part of how Cryptera's drawdown strategy can be configured.
Frequently asked questions
How often should you buy Bitcoin during a dip?
There is no universally optimal buying frequency. In our historical tests, a strategy that bought every seven days during a 30% drawdown, every three days during a 40% drawdown, and daily during a 50% drawdown produced higher ending values than a fixed seven-day schedule when invested capital was approximately matched.
Is it better to buy Bitcoin daily or weekly during a crash?
It depends on the market path and the amount of capital available. Buying daily deploys capital faster, which can improve results if prices recover but can also increase exposure while the market is still falling. Our tests suggest that frequency can be adjusted according to drawdown depth rather than using the same interval in every situation.
What is a Bitcoin drawdown?
A drawdown measures how far Bitcoin's current price has fallen from a previous peak. For example, if Bitcoin reaches $100,000 and later trades at $70,000, it is in a 30% drawdown from that peak.
Does buying more frequently during deeper Bitcoin dips improve returns?
In the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year historical periods tested here, the progressive-frequency strategy produced higher ending portfolio values than the fixed-frequency strategy with approximately equal invested capital. That historical result does not guarantee future outperformance.
This article is a historical backtest for research and educational purposes only. Past performance does not guarantee future results. It does not include trading fees, slippage, taxes or other execution costs and should not be considered financial advice.