Research

Notes from our own data: real-fill backtesting, prop-firm rule math, live bot transparency. We publish the numbers including the ones that hurt.

We tested 30 strategies. Two survived.

A month of running futures edges through a locked train/test gate. Carry, momentum, calendar, opening-range, relative-value, even our own promising finds — nearly all died. Two uncorrelated survivors (mean-reversion + trend) became a book. And simple beat clever, twice.

June 2026 · series #5 · the whole story

Conditioning beats prediction

Almost every raw edge in liquid futures sits at profit factor 1.1. The lever that moves it isn't a better model — it's conditioning. A single "only after a down day" filter took our overnight edge from PF 1.07 to 1.21, nearly tripled the Sharpe, and halved the drawdown. Plus: why stacking correlated edges doesn't compound.

June 2026 · series #4 · the conditioning lever

We tested the internet's favorite stat-arb template. It died in training.

Z-score pairs mean reversion is the most-cloned retail quant strategy. On futures, with a locked train/test protocol, the cleanest pair posted a training profit factor of 0.72 — and the way the others broke (forced rolls, secular trends) is the real lesson.

June 2026 · series #3 · stat-arb autopsy

A profit factor of 1.3 is what a real edge looks like

The edges that survived 18 years of real-fill testing have profit factors of 1.1–1.3 — and the candidate with t = 4.9 in training died out of sample. Why year-count beats magnitude, and why thin edges live or die on prop-firm rule math.

June 2026 · series #2 · edge anatomy

Paper said +$484. The broker said −$346.

We compared bot-reported P&L against broker statements on our own accounts, found an $800+ gap, and traced it to the fill artifact hiding in most retail backtests. Four strategy families died on the way to two thin, real edges. Full numbers inside.

June 2026 · series #1 · fill realism · 143M data points