Performance Disclosure

Last updated 23 September 2026 · applies to every performance figure on this site and in the course

What is hypothetical The standard disclosure What a backtest cannot see What our tests assumed The risk ladder What we do not claim

Every performance figure on this site is hypothetical. No money was at risk. Nobody traded it. It is a simulation run over historical data, produced knowing how that history turned out. It is not a prediction, not a projection, and not a promise. Your own results will differ, and they may be losses.

What is hypothetical here

The 217 backtest reports and every figure in them, exactly as MetaTrader produced them.
The five-year test across 176 instruments — the $10,000 to $16,818 figure, the 11.2% a year, the −12.7% drawdown, the 1,544 signals and the 1.30 profit factor.
The before-and-after-costs table, including the $14,040 / +7.2% after-cost row.
The risk ladder at 0.25%, 0.5% and 1% risk per trade, and the calculator that follows it.
Any figure quoted from the above in the course, in the deck or in marketing.

None of these is a record of actual trading. If we ever publish a figure from a real, funded account, we will label it as such and say whose account it was and over what period. Anything not labelled that way is hypothetical.

The standard hypothetical performance disclosure

The following is the disclosure prescribed by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the National Futures Association for hypothetical results. We reproduce it in full and unaltered, because it states the problem better than any wording of our own.

HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS HAVE MANY INHERENT LIMITATIONS, SOME OF WHICH ARE DESCRIBED BELOW. NO REPRESENTATION IS BEING MADE THAT ANY ACCOUNT WILL OR IS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE PROFITS OR LOSSES SIMILAR TO THOSE SHOWN. IN FACT, THERE ARE FREQUENTLY SHARP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND THE ACTUAL RESULTS SUBSEQUENTLY ACHIEVED BY ANY PARTICULAR TRADING PROGRAM.

ONE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS IS THAT THEY ARE GENERALLY PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT. IN ADDITION, HYPOTHETICAL TRADING DOES NOT INVOLVE FINANCIAL RISK, AND NO HYPOTHETICAL TRADING RECORD CAN COMPLETELY ACCOUNT FOR THE IMPACT OF FINANCIAL RISK IN ACTUAL TRADING. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ABILITY TO WITHSTAND LOSSES OR TO ADHERE TO A PARTICULAR TRADING PROGRAM IN SPITE OF TRADING LOSSES ARE MATERIAL POINTS WHICH CAN ALSO ADVERSELY AFFECT ACTUAL TRADING RESULTS. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER FACTORS RELATED TO THE MARKETS IN GENERAL OR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY SPECIFIC TRADING PROGRAM WHICH CANNOT BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE PREPARATION OF HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND ALL OF WHICH CAN ADVERSELY AFFECT ACTUAL TRADING RESULTS.

Past performance — whether actual or simulated — is not a reliable indicator of future results and is not a guarantee of them.

The four things a backtest cannot see

We would rather you understood these than memorised the paragraph above.

Hindsight. The rules being tested were chosen by people who already knew what the market did. Even with the best intentions, a strategy is shaped by the history it was built against. That advantage does not exist going forward, and it is the single largest reason backtests flatter.
Your nerve. A simulation takes the next trade after a losing run without hesitation, because it feels nothing. A −12.7% drawdown is a number on this page; living through it with your own money is not. Most of the gap between a backtest and a real account is not mathematical — it is the trades a person skips, sizes down, or exits early.
Your broker. Spreads widen. Orders slip. Stops fill worse than they were placed. Financing is charged overnight. Our after-cost row applies real cost assumptions, but they remain assumptions, and your broker is not our assumption — which is exactly why the course spends time on the seven pairs where the carry flips sign depending on which broker you use.
The future not resembling the past. A strategy tested across one set of market regimes has not been tested against the next one. A change in rate policy, liquidity or volatility can stop a method that worked for years, without warning and without any error in the method.

What our published tests actually assumed

So you can judge the figures rather than take them.

Period and universe	2021–2026, 4.9 years, 176 instruments traded together on one simulated account, on the broker's own hourly data.
Strategy	The same published rule set — weekly bias, daily confirmation, session entry, fixed risk cap. Not optimised per instrument after the fact.
Position sizing	A fixed percentage of account equity risked per trade, at the level stated on each figure. Sizing is the largest single driver of the result.
Starting capital	$10,000.
Costs	The gross row applies none. The after-cost row applies spread, commission and the broker's real overnight financing. Both are shown; the gross figure is never quoted alone.
Skipped signals	430 of the 1,544 signals were not taken in the after-cost run because the account could not fund them. That constraint is in the result, not hidden from it.
Execution	Assumed at the tested price. Real fills differ.
Tax	Not modelled. It is yours to pay and varies by country.
Survivorship	The instrument list is today's. A test over a past period using today's list does not reflect instruments delisted or unavailable at the time.

The number that matters is the one after costs. Over the same five years, before costs the account reached $16,818 (+11.2% a year); after real trading costs it reached $14,040 (+7.2% a year). We publish both, side by side, because a gross-only figure is not an honest one. If you ever see a figure from us without its after-cost partner, treat it as incomplete and ask.

The risk ladder, specifically

The risk ladder exists to show one thing: the same strategy, on the same signals, produces wildly different outcomes depending only on how much you risk per trade. It is a teaching device about position sizing, not a menu of expected returns.

Read it in both directions. Raising risk per trade raises the simulated return and raises the simulated drawdown with it — and drawdown is the figure that decides whether a real person keeps going. At 0.25% the worst fall was −12.7%; at 1% it was more than three times that. A larger number at the top of the ladder is not a better outcome if the path to it is one you would have abandoned in month four.

We do not recommend a risk level to you. The course teaches a maximum and the reasons for it. What you choose is yours.

What we do not claim

We do not promise, project or guarantee any return.
We do not claim any figure shown is achievable by you, or by anyone.
We do not claim the strategy will continue to behave as it did historically.
We do not present hypothetical results as though they were actual trading.
Nothing on this site is a personal recommendation. Nothing takes your circumstances, objectives or financial situation into account. The same material is published to everyone.

Testimonials

Where we publish a student's comment, we say plainly whether that person was paid, given anything free, or has any other relationship with us — next to the comment, not in a link elsewhere. One person's experience is not representative of what you should expect.

If a figure looks wrong

Tell us: [email protected]. We would rather correct a number than defend it.