▶ Full Post Text
I often stumble upon those super popular YouTube videos testing a trading strategy in just 100 trades. They usually show insane equity curves and clean stats (second image).
**So I decided to actually test one.**
This one had almost 400,000 views.
The YouTuber showed 100 trades, 56% win rate, RR of 1.5 and around +40% return (see 2nd image).
On paper? That’s a huge edge! The strategy involves a Triple Supertrend, Stochastic RSI, and a 200-period EMA on the EUR/USD 1-hour chart.
Now, as I said, the YouTube video only showed 100 trades. That's barely a blip in the grand scheme of things. So, I cranked it up and rebuilt the strategy rule-by-rule to backtest it properly: 16 years of data and over 1,700 trades.
**The result?**
Well, it was... drastically different from the stats showed in the video.
* **-23% total return**
* **-1.6% annualized return**
* **39% win rate & 1.5 RR**
* **-36% max drawdown**
Negative expectancy, negative Sharpe, profit factor < 1, and so on...
In other words: **a consistent money-loser.**
What’s wild is that the exact 100 trades shown in the video do appear in the backtest… but they’re just a short lucky stretch inside a much longer downtrend.
I’m not saying the YouTuber was lying on purpose. I know his intention was good. He's putting out content to give some potential edge ideas to further test.
But this clearly shows the danger of tiny samples, and the importance of rigorous long-term backtesting.
So, next time you see a viral trading strategy promising insane returns, remember this. Always backtest it (or forward test it) properly.
**For reference, I've attached the strategy rules I backtested (third image).**
What are your thoughts? Have you ever backtested a popular strategy only to find it was a dud?
\--
**TLDR:**
I took a viral YouTube trading strategy (400k views) that looked amazing over 100 trades (+40%, 56% win rate, 1.5 RR) and backtested it properly over 16 years (1,700 trades).
Result: **-23% total return**, **39% win rate with 1.5RR**, **-36% drawdown**, negative expectancy.
The "good" 100 trades were just a lucky stretch inside a long-term downtrend. Not calling the YouTuber a liar, but it’s a good reminder that **small samples can be very misleading**. Always test over long periods before trusting any strategy.