Home · Forward test log · Week 1
The log's first complete week. Six trades of seven printed setups, six targets, no full stops, one blank day, one missed setup — and every deviation from the ticket measured and named.
| Session | Printed | Taken | W / L | Net | Balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 11 Aug | 2 | 2 | 2 / 0 | +$246 | $100,246 |
| Wed 12 Aug | 4 | 3 | 3 / 0 | +$250 | $100,496 |
| Thu 13 Aug | 0 | 0 | — / — | $0 | $100,496 |
| Fri 14 Aug | 1 | 1 | 1 / 0 | +$61 | $100,557 |
| Week | 7 | 6 | 6 / 0 | +$557 | $100,557 |
Net figures are after commissions and fees, from a funded prop account executing in a simulated environment, not a live-money account. Gross for the week was $641; fees took $83.60, which is 13% — the toll is part of the record too.
One week is not evidence of anything. Six winners from six trades over four sessions is what a coin can do. Falcon trades frequent smaller winners against a wide predefined stop, which means one full stop gives back roughly seven winners — and none has occurred in this week. When it comes, it will be published with the same prominence, on the day it happens.
Not the win rate. Four things happened this week that the table cannot show, and they are the real record.
Two strikes, both long, both hit target. On the first, I ordered nine contracts when the ticket said six. My error, not the system's, and it happened to profit — an extra $52.50 I should not have had, sitting inside that $246. Day one of publishing, and the first thing to report was my own mistake. That is roughly what this log is for.
Four printed, I took three. The one I missed came at 15:50 New York while I was away from the desk; it filled and hit target ten seconds apart and would have paid $98. It is not in the numbers, because it did not happen.
Of the three I took, one filled half a point above the ticket — ordinary slippage on a buy stop, worth $6. Two of the three winners went against me the moment they filled and sat underwater longer than average before coming back. A wide stop buys that room. It is still uncomfortable to sit through, and pretending otherwise is how these records usually lie.
No qualifying setup in the entire session, so no trades, and the account closed where it opened. I will not call that discipline — there was nothing to resist. The only reason a blank day is a non-event is that the rules were written before the session rather than during it.
One setup. A sell stop with a $100 target, and the market was moving fast enough that I filled a point below the ticket — $20 gone before the trade was a second old. The exit paid at the ticket's price exactly, three seconds after the fill. Fees took $19 on ten contracts, 24% of the trade's gross. The chart says +$100 and the account says +$61, and this log publishes the account's version.
Slippage ran both directions: $9 in my favour Tuesday, $6 against Wednesday, $20 against Friday — a net $17 cost that will not always be that small, because stop orders in fast markets fill where the market allows, not where the ticket asks. Fees took $83.60 of $641 gross. One setup was missed by absence, none by choice. Every deviation between a ticket and a fill this week is named above, including the one that made money.
The +$557 is buffer against the stop that has not come yet, not proof of anything. The running log continues daily, and next week's page will sit beside this one whatever it says.
Everything on this page can be checked rather than believed: the historical strikes stay on the TradingView chart, and bar replay walks through any of them candle by candle, during a free week, before any payment exists.
Take the free week and check it yourselfResults shown are from a funded prop account executing in a simulated environment. Hypothetical or simulated performance results have certain limitations. Unlike an actual performance record, simulated results do not represent actual trading. Also, since the trades have not been executed, the results may have under- or over-compensated for the impact, if any, of certain market factors, such as lack of liquidity. Simulated trading programs in general are also subject to the fact that they are designed with the benefit of hindsight. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profit or losses similar to those shown. Falcon is a trading tool and does not provide financial advice. Futures trading involves substantial risk of loss.