Not intention of proving it either I bet LOL Luck LOL you believe in luck while lecturing others how to trade LOL
I don't still hold records from 1977, but you could always look up my posts on TMF from 1998. I didn't post to CompuServe. As for luck, no, I don't believe in it, but you clearly do, which is why I wished it for you. Again, best of luck to you.
Wild goose chase, fishy!! Definately don't believe in luck, why I always use the term random chance! Best of random chance to you!
I dont trade for a living. I trade to build my wealth. I set aside a year's living cost from my overall wealth and trade a big portion of the rest. I appreciate not everyone can do this, but too bad. it gives me another edge over others.
In the same vein, I used to think that if one could tell time and tie his own shoes, he could succeed as a trader. But I've since learned that it also helps to be able to draw a straight line and draw a box.
Since when is a backtest not evidence? The guy gave full disclosure, both his data set and his strategy. Like a good science experiment, it's reproducible. Those who wish to disprove it have all the information they need to do so.
I speak about my personal experience, that's all I can speak about. I do trade the ES, what others do is not important for me. For me demo trading approaches real time trading. You speak probably about traders who stay seconds or minutes in a trade as they make very small profits. I keep positions in general for 1,2 or even 3 hours. I always have fills in seconds and demo prices are very close to market prices. I can check this by comparing, after closing of the market, real prices with demo prices. For me it makes sense. So there is not 1 simple answer to the question of the OP.
Evidence that it's worth implementing. If a strategy under consideration fails its backtest(s), then there's no point in wasting more time on it. What did you think backtests were for?