Ratings by backtests
Why the people is giving ratings just based on backtests, can they understand that a backtest means nothing?
Everybody can make a backtest and see a great performance, even on the pictures attached, and then get scammed by fake results.
Conclusion: no reliable product without a signal, <Deleted> .
I agree that leaving a review based only on backtest results is not logical.
A backtest is not nothing, it shows the performance of a product in the past, but it is not also a guarantee for future results.
Also a product without a live signal is not necessarily unreliable.
Why the people is giving ratings just based on backtests, can they understand that a backtest means nothing?
Everybody can make a backtest and see a great performance, even on the pictures attached, and then get scammed by fake results.
Conclusion: no reliable product without a signal, <Deleted> .
Even that is not the case since when the signal goes south or not living up to the claims of the product, the author of the product removes the signal. If it could not be removed but archived the conclusion may hold up. Also there is no way to know if the signal has the actual product running.
Even that is not the case since when the signal goes south or not living up to the claims of the product, the author of the product removes the signal. If it could not be removed but archived the conclusion may hold up. Also there is no way to know if the signal has the actual product running.
That is true.
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
Why the people is giving ratings just based on backtests, can they understand that a backtest means nothing?
Everybody can make a backtest and see a great performance, even on the pictures attached, and then get scammed by fake results.
Conclusion: no reliable product without a signal, <Deleted>.