Yes of course. In any case, "traders" who think that backtests are useless should have their head examined.
You seem confused. Lindq has been trading for 20 years or longer and he was backtesting back in early 2000s or earlier. That's not the "appeal to age" fallacy, that's experience.
An edge is when you have positive expectancy. You posted a consistently losing system and asked if anyone would trade the opposite of it. My reply is: if the data of the backtested system has " 1 trade a week for the past 30 years, then yes I will consider it if there is still an edge after slippage." Does a losing system have an Edge?
Please copy and paste this alleged post. As a reminder here is my original post: "Again, the question is very simple: a backtest shows that trading system X has been losing 10% a year on average, for the last 30 years. Would you trade such a system, now? Would you buy this system, if it was for sale? A simple YES or NO will do."
%% That; + some markets are known for bad data which can be another big problem. Other markets ,with different data, can be helpful...………………………………………..Trend study may be helpful; for those interested in random patterns/study that.
There are no real trends in random data, meaning it is impossible to exploit them financially. With random data the price is normally distributed, clearly not the case with market data.
%% I agree+ prefer trends. I did not mean to imply I was interested in random patterns; but op noted that book, so I don't mind if spends his time with random. Sideways slop/chop are tricky trends ; I would not call them random...…………………………………………………………………………………………..
@lindq's posts were always thoughtful and helpful. Often direct and to the point. This newbie learned a lot from him.
I quoted you in post #108. Even bolded it for you in case you misread it again. Look at your original post #98
Alright, I am done here, "traders" who want to trade unproven, non-backtested trading systems are free to do so, it's their money after all.