For context, I made this post that talks about the minimum capital requirement needed to trade a particular pair and how much you could theoretically make if you increased your lot size after a set number of days and by an amount determined by dividing your current capital by the initial.
Since I had the idea, I have always had doubts about whether or not the projected profits could be attained. So I tested It.
I carried out the test using data from my backtests. I selected 3:
The first represented the worst case scenario, the second represented the best, and the third represented a middle ground.
The “Balance” column is shows the account balance if I only trade a lot size of 1 throughout and the second shows the account balance if I was changing the lot size.
So, if my account balance crossed $1,100, I would change my lot size from 1 to 1.57 and if it fell below $1,100, I wold change it back to 1.
This chart show the balances over the course of the backtest and as we can see, both losses and profits become amplified when the lot size changes, which causes the final account balance to be $2,642.26 compared to $2,642.26
This chart is for the second backtest (the GREAT one) and as we can see, the profit and losses were amplified a LOT, with the biggest consecutive loss on the account with a static lot size and the account with a dynamic one to be $743.60 and $9,538.72 respectively.
This chart shows the balances for the third backtest, and the difference in the final balances is $7,112.13 which is 10X the initial starting capital.
There is one tiny thing though, each backtest spans around 1 month but, as you can tell by the graphs, I wasn’t making the required amount per day, which would have been $100 and I also wasn’t trading every trading day. In fact, the backtest with the most days traded is the third with 14.
So, instead of calling this experiment a failure since I didn’t stick to the rules, I decided to instead average everything.
In a month, I traded an average of 12 days and the average final balance which I got from averaging the first balance of $2,624.26, the second of $25,130.61 and the third of $10,776.78, we get an average of $12,849.88.
I averaged the weeks that the first and second backtests lasted and rounded that number down to 5 weeks.
As you can see, the experiment has actually performed BETTER than the projected profit of the 5th week by a whole $2,309.88.
Not only has the theory been proven CORRECT but it has managed to OUTDO itself and provide bigger returns than the ones projected.
The only downside that this is that I didn’t use REAL money 
