Many trading strategies show promising results during backtesting but fail when deployed in live markets.
This gap between historical performance and real-world results is one of the most misunderstood aspects of systematic trading.
Backtesting itself is not flawed. Misinterpretation and misuse of backtesting results are.
When used correctly, backtesting provides valuable insight. When abused, it creates false confidence.
Overfitting occurs when a strategy is optimized to perform exceptionally well on historical data but lacks generalization.
Signs of overfitting include:
Curve fitting tailors a strategy to past price movements.
Robust strategies perform reasonably well across a wide range of conditions.
Backtesting should aim for robustness, not perfection.

Data leakage occurs when future information is inadvertently used in past calculations.
Common examples include:
Survivorship bias results from testing only assets that currently exist.
Assets that failed or were delisted are excluded, inflating results.
Many backtests assume perfect execution.
In live trading, execution is imperfect.
Ignoring these factors creates unrealistic expectations.
Strategies often perform well in specific market regimes.
When regimes change, performance can degrade rapidly.
Backtests must cover multiple market cycles.
A small number of trades cannot support reliable conclusions.
Statistical noise often masquerades as edge.

Even perfectly backtested strategies can fail due to human behavior.
Certain metrics can hide risk:
Backtesting should evolve with the strategy.
Markets change. Assumptions expire.
Most strategies fail after backtesting not because backtesting is ineffective, but because it is misunderstood.
Robust strategy design, realistic assumptions, and disciplined execution are essential for long-term success.