Accountability
- Apr 18
- 2 min read
Trading is not like most professions.
One major difference is the assignment of tasks across different states and different times of the day. It is a clear principle violation to do system development and execution at the same time.
You cannot be engaged in finding edges through backtesting and forward testing, analyzing data, and evaluating probabilities while also observing live markets and managing execution. These are different modes of the mind.
System development is analytical in nature. Execution is not. Execution requires focus, precision, sequence, and the ability to follow rules without drifting back into analysis. It demands a very specific state.
That separation has consequences. It often leads to long days and a heavy load of after-hours work.
One part of that work is performance review. On the one hand, there is the discipline review: how well did I perform the actual execution tasks, and did I follow my rules precisely. On the other hand, there is the numbers review: does the math still check out, and do actual probabilities align with paper-trading expectancy.
This is where accountability comes in.
It makes little sense to trade meaningful size if paper-trading results are not already showing consistency. Accountability is not an optional extra. It is part of the foundation.
The following numbers reflect trades I posted publicly in real time over the past years.
Midas Touch
Between January 2018 and April 2020, I posted real-time trades with an average risk of less than half a percent per trade. At that time, the main focus was Bitcoin and cryptocurrency trading on smaller time frames.
From August 2022 to March 2025, I again posted trades in real time at PPT’s Red Room.
This time, the focus expanded to gold, silver, Bitcoin, and S&P 500 futures. The time frames also expanded, ranging from intraday execution to much larger position-trading horizons.
In addition, here are the statistics from the last five quarters of execution posted on X:
Comments