FAQ Section | Frequently Asked Questions
A track record answers a clearly defined question: How has a strategy developed under certain conditions in the past?
It shows:
- results
- fluctuations
- loss phases
- statistical characteristics
It does not answer:
- how these results came about
- how they were experienced psychologically
- how they would come about under changed conditions
- how viable they would be for other people
A track record is thus a description of historical results, not an explanation of how they came about and not a promise for the future.
Performance presentations suggest comparability because they reduce different strategies to common key figures. However, it is often overlooked that these key figures can originate from different areas of knowledge
A track record can be based on:
- real money trading
- simulated trading
- backtesting
- mixed forms
On the outside, these representations look identical. Internally, they are fundamentally different. Without context, the impression is created that the results are directly comparable - even though they were produced under different real-life conditions.
Performance representations are subject to systematic effects, regardless of intention or quality:
- Selection bias: Successful processes are shown, failed ones disappear.
- Time window effects: The selected time period significantly influences the statement.
- Representation reduction: Complex decision-making processes are shortened to final results.
- Psychological smoothing: Drawdowns are presented mathematically, not experienced.
These effects are not caused by manipulation, but by the necessary simplification of historical data.
A track record measures results - not stress.
It does not show:
- how losing phases felt
- whether rules were ever questioned
- how high the mental pressure was
- whether discipline was maintained over the long term
Thus missing a central dimension: human realization under real value.
A performance can be historically convincing and yet be based on assumptions that are not sustainable in real terms - such as long periods of losses, high volatility or rare but extreme risks.
Track records should be understood as classification tools, not as evidence.
They are suitable:
- for historical orientation
- for plausibility checks
- for describing past developments
They are not suitable:
- as a promise of success
- as a prediction of behavior
- as a guarantee of repeatability
The crucial evaluation question is therefore not: How good is this performance? but: Under what conditions was it created - and which of these no longer apply today?
Track records are useful if:
- their context of origin is transparent
- it is clear whether they originate from demo, simulation, backtest or real money
- they are read as historical information
They become problematic if:
- they are presented without context
- they are interpreted as a promise of performance
- they are supposed to replace real decision-making reality
Here, too, it is not the presentation itself that is decisive, but the claim that is made of it.