“Six losses mean the strategy has stopped working.”
That is what your head tells you when the red stretch lasts longer than expected.
By 19 June, my futures trading was down 6R for the month. I had lost seven funded accounts during the drawdown. My win rate had fallen from around 20% at the start of the year to 17.5%.
Then an A+ gold and silver setup appeared at 11am.
I was at the gym.
I missed it completely.
“Maybe the system is no longer working. Maybe I need to change something.”
The setup at 11am
The context was clean. My direction was right. Gold and silver gave the setup I had been waiting for.
I was not in front of the screen when it happened.
Could I catch every valid setup?
Yes. I could sit at the screen for 16 hours a day and try.
That is not a real solution.
Live trading has costs that do not appear clearly in a clean backtest. You miss winners. You miss losers. Sometimes you take the valid trade, get stopped, and watch price run in your direction without you.
By that point in June, I had missed two runners. My futures results were down 6R. I had lost seven funded accounts during the same drawdown.
![[Pasted image 20260620093527.png]]
If I judged the system from those headlines alone, changing it would feel reasonable.
But those headlines do not tell me whether the edge has stopped working.
The numbers look broken
My system has a low win rate.
It was around 20% at the start of 2026. By 19 June, it was around 17.5%. My equity curve was roughly flat across the last 50 trades.
That can feel like failure when you are living through it trade by trade.
Loss.
Break-even.
Another loss.
Then the winner appears while you are away from the screen.
This is where you usually start editing the system.
A tighter stop. An earlier entry. A new confirmation. Maybe a second strategy so there are more chances to trade.
But the recent result does not tell you what needs changing. It only tells you what happened.
You still need to know whether you followed the tested rules, whether missed setups changed the live sample and whether the current drawdown is unusual for the system.
![[Pasted image 20260620093608.png]]
Without those answers, I would be changing the system because I feel uncomfortable, not because the data tells me to.
Backtests don’t go to the gym
The backtest I am comparing against gives me a cleaner trading environment.
It does not miss a trade because I am at the gym.
It does not hesitate.
It does not have a life outside trading.
My original test also did not account for the same spread, slippage and missed trades that occur during live execution.
Live trading includes all of them.
That does not make the backtest useless. It means your live journal must measure the gap between the test and the real world.
If your backtest assumes every valid setup is taken, but your schedule means you miss some of them, your live results are measuring a different sample.
The answer is not automatically to stop going to the gym or watch the chart all day.
The answer is to record the setups you missed.
Otherwise, your results tell you only what happened to the trades you took. They do not show how the complete system performed.
Count the missing trades
When a valid setup appears and you miss it, add it to your journal.
Record the setup, planned entry, stop and result. Mark clearly that it was missed. Record why you missed it.
Do the same for missed losers.
Do not collect only the runners that would have saved the month.
If you record only missed winners, you create a new fantasy dataset. It tells you that your life keeps stealing profit from you while hiding every loss you avoided by being away.
You need the full sample.
After enough trades, you can answer the useful question.
Is the tested edge failing, or is live execution producing a different sample?
A broken rule needs an execution fix.
If your schedule makes you miss too many valid setups, change how you monitor them.
If the system is still performing inside its tested range, changing it might create a problem that was not there before.
A mistake is different
I am not saying every loss should be ignored.
In May, I made an operational mistake that cost 13R.
That needed a review because my execution broke.
Two days later, I took the next valid MNQ setup. I followed the same management rules. The trade ran 16.19R before reversing. I secured 4.6R.
I did not trail tighter to recover the 13R. Tighter trailing was not my rule.
The operational mistake and the normal drawdown needed different reviews.
One involved broken execution. The other could happen while the system was working as tested.
If you treat both as proof that the strategy is dead, you will keep changing rules after every painful stretch. You will never leave one system untouched long enough to judge it properly.
Check before you change
Before changing your strategy after a drawdown, answer three questions.
1. Did the trades follow the rules you tested?
2. Did you record the valid setups you missed, including the losers?
3. Is the current result outside the range your backtest prepared you for?
If you cannot answer those questions, you do not yet have enough evidence to change the strategy.
Record the missing data first.
My June numbers were uncomfortable.
Down 6R. Seven funded accounts lost during the drawdown. Two missed runners. A 17.5% win rate. Roughly flat across the last 50 trades.
They affected my mood a little. I would be lying if I said otherwise.
They did not give me permission to trade the next setup differently.
If your journal records only the trades you took, fix that before changing your system. You need the complete sample before deciding whether your edge is broken.
Stay consistent. Stay safe.
That is what your head tells you when the red stretch lasts longer than expected.
By 19 June, my futures trading was down 6R for the month. I had lost seven funded accounts during the drawdown. My win rate had fallen from around 20% at the start of the year to 17.5%.
Then an A+ gold and silver setup appeared at 11am.
I was at the gym.
I missed it completely.
“Maybe the system is no longer working. Maybe I need to change something.”
The setup at 11am
The context was clean. My direction was right. Gold and silver gave the setup I had been waiting for.
I was not in front of the screen when it happened.
Could I catch every valid setup?
Yes. I could sit at the screen for 16 hours a day and try.
That is not a real solution.
Live trading has costs that do not appear clearly in a clean backtest. You miss winners. You miss losers. Sometimes you take the valid trade, get stopped, and watch price run in your direction without you.
By that point in June, I had missed two runners. My futures results were down 6R. I had lost seven funded accounts during the same drawdown.
![[Pasted image 20260620093527.png]]
If I judged the system from those headlines alone, changing it would feel reasonable.
But those headlines do not tell me whether the edge has stopped working.
The numbers look broken
My system has a low win rate.
It was around 20% at the start of 2026. By 19 June, it was around 17.5%. My equity curve was roughly flat across the last 50 trades.
That can feel like failure when you are living through it trade by trade.
Loss.
Break-even.
Another loss.
Then the winner appears while you are away from the screen.
This is where you usually start editing the system.
A tighter stop. An earlier entry. A new confirmation. Maybe a second strategy so there are more chances to trade.
But the recent result does not tell you what needs changing. It only tells you what happened.
You still need to know whether you followed the tested rules, whether missed setups changed the live sample and whether the current drawdown is unusual for the system.
![[Pasted image 20260620093608.png]]
Without those answers, I would be changing the system because I feel uncomfortable, not because the data tells me to.
Backtests don’t go to the gym
The backtest I am comparing against gives me a cleaner trading environment.
It does not miss a trade because I am at the gym.
It does not hesitate.
It does not have a life outside trading.
My original test also did not account for the same spread, slippage and missed trades that occur during live execution.
Live trading includes all of them.
That does not make the backtest useless. It means your live journal must measure the gap between the test and the real world.
If your backtest assumes every valid setup is taken, but your schedule means you miss some of them, your live results are measuring a different sample.
The answer is not automatically to stop going to the gym or watch the chart all day.
The answer is to record the setups you missed.
Otherwise, your results tell you only what happened to the trades you took. They do not show how the complete system performed.
Count the missing trades
When a valid setup appears and you miss it, add it to your journal.
Record the setup, planned entry, stop and result. Mark clearly that it was missed. Record why you missed it.
Do the same for missed losers.
Do not collect only the runners that would have saved the month.
If you record only missed winners, you create a new fantasy dataset. It tells you that your life keeps stealing profit from you while hiding every loss you avoided by being away.
You need the full sample.
After enough trades, you can answer the useful question.
Is the tested edge failing, or is live execution producing a different sample?
A broken rule needs an execution fix.
If your schedule makes you miss too many valid setups, change how you monitor them.
If the system is still performing inside its tested range, changing it might create a problem that was not there before.
A mistake is different
I am not saying every loss should be ignored.
In May, I made an operational mistake that cost 13R.
That needed a review because my execution broke.
Two days later, I took the next valid MNQ setup. I followed the same management rules. The trade ran 16.19R before reversing. I secured 4.6R.
I did not trail tighter to recover the 13R. Tighter trailing was not my rule.
The operational mistake and the normal drawdown needed different reviews.
One involved broken execution. The other could happen while the system was working as tested.
If you treat both as proof that the strategy is dead, you will keep changing rules after every painful stretch. You will never leave one system untouched long enough to judge it properly.
Check before you change
Before changing your strategy after a drawdown, answer three questions.
1. Did the trades follow the rules you tested?
2. Did you record the valid setups you missed, including the losers?
3. Is the current result outside the range your backtest prepared you for?
If you cannot answer those questions, you do not yet have enough evidence to change the strategy.
Record the missing data first.
My June numbers were uncomfortable.
Down 6R. Seven funded accounts lost during the drawdown. Two missed runners. A 17.5% win rate. Roughly flat across the last 50 trades.
They affected my mood a little. I would be lying if I said otherwise.
They did not give me permission to trade the next setup differently.
If your journal records only the trades you took, fix that before changing your system. You need the complete sample before deciding whether your edge is broken.
Stay consistent. Stay safe.
Publications connexes
Clause de non-responsabilité
Les informations et publications ne sont pas destinées à être, et ne constituent pas, des conseils ou recommandations financiers, d'investissement, de trading ou autres fournis ou approuvés par TradingView. Pour en savoir plus, consultez les Conditions d'utilisation.
Publications connexes
Clause de non-responsabilité
Les informations et publications ne sont pas destinées à être, et ne constituent pas, des conseils ou recommandations financiers, d'investissement, de trading ou autres fournis ou approuvés par TradingView. Pour en savoir plus, consultez les Conditions d'utilisation.