21 of TradingView's most-liked strategies: 0 real edges

Source: TradingView community scripts

Spread killed the scalpers. Whipsaw killed the trend-followers.

The one that looked real was resting on a data file missing 47% of its hours.

Data bug found

47% of hours missing in one tape

This verdict is about the strategy as published, not about the person who shared it.

The claim

Here’s what the strategy promises, in its own terms.

The most-boosted strategies on TradingView work.

How we tested it

Same six checks as everything else here: random entries, coin flips, a look-ahead audit, unseen years, double costs and a luck check. How we test →

What we found

We scraped the Pine, rebuilt each faithfully in Python and ran a three-step proof on its own symbol: reproduce the author's claim fee-free, add the real spread, then test on unseen data. Zero of 21 survived. The fast scalpers died to spread, trend-followers whipsawed, no-stop systems hid a blow-up, over-filtered ones never fired. The one that first looked real turned out to rest on a data file missing 47% of its hours; on a rebuilt tape it could not be told apart from random entry and lost to holding the index.

The numbers

The headline numbers from our test.

Strategies	21
Survivors	0
Boosts filter	50+ rockets
Data bug found	47% of hours missing in one tape; verdict reversed after rebuild

• Profit factor: money won divided by money lost. Below 1.0 loses money. Around 1.0 is break-even.
• R-multiple: profit or loss measured in units of the amount risked per trade. +1R means you made what you risked.
• vs random: how the strategy did against the same trades with random entries.