<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Backtest Discipline</title><link>https://backtestdiscipline.com/</link><description>Published trading strategies, independently tested. Evidence-backed evaluations and practical research lessons by Mikhail Klemin.</description><language>en-US</language><atom:link href="https://backtestdiscipline.com/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>739 trades later: testing a popular 5-minute Bitcoin scalping strategy</title><link>https://backtestdiscipline.com/research/research-007/</link><pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">https://backtestdiscipline.com/research/research-007/</guid><description>We converted Data Trader's 5-minute Bitcoin range-fade rules into a bounded deterministic specification before evaluation. On one year of complete post-publication BTCUSDT data, the implementation produced 739 trades and failed its predeclared survival rule.</description></item><item><title>Why a +20.5% annualized return still failed our strategy test</title><link>https://backtestdiscipline.com/notes/why-positive-annualized-return-still-failed/</link><pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">https://backtestdiscipline.com/notes/why-positive-annualized-return-still-failed/</guid><description>A positive return describes one dimension of a backtest. It does not override a multi-criterion acceptance rule that was fixed before the result was known.</description></item><item><title>A published Bitcoin trend strategy reduced drawdown — but still failed</title><link>https://backtestdiscipline.com/research/published-strategy-replication-001/</link><pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">https://backtestdiscipline.com/research/published-strategy-replication-001/</guid><description>We tested all four published BTC trend-following horizons on a subsequent out-of-sample period. Every variant reduced maximum drawdown, but every mean excess-return estimate was negative. Under the frozen family rule, 0 of 4 variants survived.</description></item><item><title>When the prose and the code disagree</title><link>https://backtestdiscipline.com/notes/when-prose-and-code-disagree/</link><pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">https://backtestdiscipline.com/notes/when-prose-and-code-disagree/</guid><description>Benchmark 004 reproduced an external channel-breakout notebook exactly enough to expose a harder question: when the written explanation and the executed program differ, which object are you actually testing?</description></item><item><title>Research 005: why a positive return still failed</title><link>https://backtestdiscipline.com/research/research-005/</link><pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">https://backtestdiscipline.com/research/research-005/</guid><description>The final experiment returned +5.26% net over the frozen holdout and a +20.50% annualized arithmetic mean return. It was still classified FALSIFIED because the Sharpe and dependence-aware confidence criteria did not pass.</description></item><item><title>Benchmark 004: reproduce the result before trusting it</title><link>https://backtestdiscipline.com/research/benchmark-004/</link><pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">https://backtestdiscipline.com/research/benchmark-004/</guid><description>Benchmark 004 asked a deliberately narrow question before any prospective extension: could independent machinery recover the same executable strategy behavior and the same underlying market-data panel? The terminal answer was FULL_REPLICATION_MATCH.</description></item></channel></rss>