In the universe of algorithmic and quantitative trading, the No-Nonsense Forex (NNFX) method shines through with its systematic edge. At the heart of every NNFX strategy lies the Baseline Indicator—it provides a quick, high-level view of the market’s trend direction.

In this article, I’m excited to present my first baseline indicator test. I used the classic crossover entry rule, combining the Ehler iTrend with the default NNFX Volume Indicator (ADX 14, threshold 25) and the standard Exit Indicator (Heiken Ashi reversal). This test ran from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2024, across eight major forex pairs: EURUSD, AUDNZD, EURGBP, AUDCAD, CHFJPY, GBPJPY, USDCAD, and USDSGD — all on the daily chart.

The results clearly show that this indicator outperforms the default 20-period SMA baseline. Here’s my full analysis of its performance and potential role in your NNFX system.

Overall Performance Overview (2020–2024)

Key Results Summary

Interpretation Based on NNFX Standards

Profit Factor (1.16)

In a complete NNFX algorithm, a Profit Factor below 1.30 is considered weak. While 1.16 is a clear improvement over the SMA 20’s 0.67, this result still falls short of the NNFX threshold for long-term reliability. However, it does indicate consistent profitability.

Win Rate (48.77%) and Payoff Ratio (1.21)

The win rate meets NNFX standards, which typically aim for above 45%. However, the payoff ratio remains low; ideally, we’d see a ratio above 2.0 to handle extended loss streaks. Still, this system lacks a complete exit strategy and confirmation indicators, which would likely improve the payoff ratio.

Trade Expectancy ($32.62)

This is a small but positive figure, meaning the system makes money on average per trade. But with over 1,100 trades and a starting balance of $10,000, this level of expectancy isn’t quite high enough for a professional-grade system.

Drawdown (11.79%)

This is slightly above the 10% prop firm threshold. That said, reducing risk per trade from 2% to 1% would lower the drawdown below 6%, improving funding eligibility and reducing overexposure.

Loss Sequences (3.75 avg / 10.13 max)

A 10-trade losing streak is psychologically and strategically significant. It likely means the system can stay on the wrong side of a pair for up to 10 months, requiring strong discipline or better signal filtering.

Overall Diagnostic Table

Final Assessment

The Ehler iTrend offers a significant improvement over the SMA 20 baseline. As a Baseline Indicator, it shows promise—especially when paired with better confirmation tools. While the KPIs are not yet NNFX-grade, this test lacked a Confirmation 1 or Confirmation 2 indicator, and the volume/exit logic was left on default.

Interestingly, the high trade count even on higher settings implies that this indicator could work well in tandem with a slower, more selective confirmation indicator.

Pair-by-Pair Analysis

AUDCAD: Stable performer. PF = 1.07, Win % = 48.77, Net = $282.60, DD = 9.79%. Mildly positive.

AUDNZD: Top performer. PF = 1.48, Win % = 49.22, Net = $1,489.91, DD = 7.85%. Strong reward-to-risk profile.

CHFJPY: Marginally profitable. PF = 1.03, Win % = 47.06, Net = $108.13, DD = 10.91%. Needs better entry filtering.

EURGBP: Flat results. PF = 1.02, Win % = 46.88, Net = $92.60, DD = 9.59%. Slightly positive without a confirmation indicator.

EURUSD: Strong result. PF = 1.25, Win % = 52.46, Net = $954.89, DD = 19.89%. Volatile with many false signals.

GBPJPY: Volatile but profitable. PF = 1.07, Win % = 49.11, Net = $274.44, DD = 14.47%. Good base for refinement.

USDCAD: Excellent performance. PF = 1.29, Win % = 49.21, Net = $1,048.74, DD = 11.38%. Nearly ideal profile.

USDSGD: Conservative gains. PF = 1.05, Win % = 47.44, Net = $236.34, DD = 10.46%. Low risk, low reward.

Overall Findings Table

Conclusion

The Ehler iTrend indicator as a Baseline within a NNFX framework shows considerable promise. Even though the metrics don’t yet hit NNFX perfection, it clearly beats the SMA 20 and performs consistently across multiple pairs.

Take the time to pair it with quality confirmation indicators and a strong exit strategy. You might be surprised by how much this underrated tool can elevate your algorithm.

The post Backtesting Ehler iTrend as a Baseline appeared first on Neural Trading.

Key metrics & performance Insights

Introduction

In the structured, empirical world of No-Nonsense Forex (NNFX), each component of a trading algorithm must earn its place through rigorous, data-backed testing. The Confirmation 1 (C1) indicator plays a pivotal role in validating Baseline signals before a trade is entered, making it one of the most scrutinized pieces in the NNFX puzzle.

This article explores the performance of the Mamy indicator as a C1 tool. The tests were conducted using the NNFX default settings: a 20-period SMA as Baseline, 14-period ADX with a threshold of 25 as Volume, and Heiken Ashi as the Exit indicator. Backtests covered eight major Forex pairs (EURUSD, AUDNZD, EURGBP, AUDCAD, GBPJPY, USDCAD, USDSGD) from January 1st, 2020, to December 31st, 2024.

The results reveal how Mamy behaves across different market environments—from trending to ranging—and where it might belong within the broader NNFX system.

Overall Performance Overview (5-Year Summary)

Key Results Summary

Interpretation Based on NNFX Standards

Profit Factor (1.40)
A profit factor above 1.30 meets the basic threshold for a viable C1 under NNFX. At 1.40, Mamy shows it can be profitable in the long run, albeit marginally. This is a promising foundation for refinement indicating that it can perform with the proper Exit Indicator.

Winning Rate (53.16%) & Payoff Ratio (1.02)
The win rate is solidly above 50%, suggesting a reliable signal. However, the nearly flat payoff ratio indicates the average win barely outpaces the average loss. In NNFX, this balance limits upside and heightens sensitivity to slippage and costs. Yet another sign that the Heiken Ashi might not be the right Exiting signal for that indicator.

Trade Expectancy ($18.47)
Positive expectancy is a key indicator of long-term edge. Mamy’s $18.47 per trade suggests consistent value, even if modest. This supports its candidacy as a C1, especially in conjunction with strong Volume and Exit tools.

Drawdown (3.78%)
With a drawdown under 4%, Mamy keeps risk tightly controlled. This is well within the safe zone for both retail traders and prop firm benchmarks. Risk management appears sound and well-calibrated.

Loss Sequences (Avg: 3.5 | Max: 4.5)
Loss streaks are reasonable and reflect resilience under volatile or consolidating conditions. This reinforces the system’s reliability and manageable psychological load during drawdowns.

Taken together, these results place Mamy on firm ground as a Confirmation 1 with modest but clear strengths.

Overall Diagnostic Table

NNFX Recommendations

• Retune risk-reward settings → That indicator needs to be paired with the right Exit Indicator to function in a NNFX environment.
• Test alternate Volume/Confirmation 2 combinations → May enhance filtering and eliminate marginal trades.
• Evaluate selective pair usage → Pair-specific behavior may outperform system-wide application.
• Test Mamy as C2 or Exit → Could shine with fewer trades or under different logic roles.

Final Assessment

Mamy shows surprising strength as a Confirmation 1 under NNFX. A profit factor of 1.40 and win rate over 53% are very respectable, and its low drawdown confirms excellent risk control. However, the almost 1-to-1 payoff ratio and negative overall profit reveal that the edge is fragile and require some work.

With minimal tuning—especially around reward-to-risk targeting—Mamy could graduate into a dependable part of an NNFX algorithm. If not as a C1, its structure may be more effective as a C2 or even Exit filter. In its current form, it’s a borderline pass—but one with real promise.

Pair-by-Pair Analysis

AUDCAD
Summary: 32 trades | PF = 0.55 | Win % = 43.75 | Net = -$371.62 | DD = 7.14%
Performed poorly, with low PF and high losses. Likely struggled in choppy ranges. Needs strict filtering.

AUDNZD
Summary: 16 trades | PF = 3.98 | Win % = 68.75 | Net = +$224.73 | DD = 2.41%
The standout performer with excellent profit factor and drawdown control. Showed Mamy’s peak potential.

EURGBP
Summary: 16 trades | PF = 0.94 | Win % = 50 | Net = -$21.45 | DD = 2.33%
Flat and unremarkable. Decent balance of wins and losses but no clear edge.

EURUSD
Summary: 20 trades | PF = 0.61 | Win % = 50 | Net = -$176.78 | DD = 3.96%
Consistently underwhelming, suggesting poor trend capture.

GBPJPY
Summary: 34 trades | PF = 0.45 | Win % = 47.06 | Net = -$409.41 | DD = 5.01%
Volatile pair amplified Mamy’s weaknesses. Lacked robustness here.

USDCAD
Summary: 20 trades | PF = 1.25 | Win % = 70 | Net = +$58.35 | DD = 1.98%
Solid result just shy of NNFX standards. Promising candidate for optimization.

USDSGD
Summary: 24 trades | PF = 2.68 | Win % = 62.5 | Net = +$666.20 | DD = 2.49%
Another strong showing. Indicates high alignment with trending behavior.

Overall Findings Table

Average PF = 1.49, confirming a high variance strategy with potential on selected pairs.

Conclusion

The Mamy indicator shows measurable strength as a Confirmation 1 under NNFX testing protocols. While net profit remains slightly negative, other metrics—especially Profit Factor and win rate—highlight a functional tool with real upside.

For traders following the NNFX system, Mamy may serve best with tighter payoff tuning or when limited to high-performing pairs. As a C2 or Exit indicator, its structure may excel even further. In short: not a mirage, but not yet a miracle either.

The post Mamy Indicator Review: NNFX Confirmation 1 Test appeared first on Neural Trading.

Introduction

In the world of systematic trading, the No-Nonsense Forex (NNFX) methodology stands apart for its empirical rigor and strict rules-based structure. Every component—Baseline, Volume, Confirmation, Exit—must be stress-tested across years of historical data to prove its edge. Indicators must demonstrate statistical merit, not just visual appeal.

In this test, we evaluated the ADX Directional Movement indicator as the Confirmation 1 (C1) within the NNFX system. Using the default 20-period SMA as the Baseline, 14-period ADX (threshold 25) as the Volume indicator, and Heiken Ashi candles as the Exit strategy, the goal was to assess whether directional movement strength could reliably support trade confirmations.

Backtests were conducted across eight major Forex pairs — EURUSD, EURGBP, AUDNZD, AUDCAD, CHFJPY, GBPJPY, USDCAD, and USDSGD — over a five-year period from January 1st, 2020 to December 31st, 2024 on the Daily (D1) timeframe.

The results reveal how ADX Directional Movement behaves across different market environments — from trending to ranging — and where it may fit within the NNFX framework.

Overall Performance Overview

Key Results Summary:

Interpretation Based on NNFX Standards

Profit Factor (PF = 1.22)

In NNFX methodology, a Profit Factor of 1.30 or above is the benchmark for a viable setup. At 1.22, this test indicates a slightly profitable system at best. The system makes more than it loses, but not by a wide enough margin.

Winning Rate (44.44%) and Payoff Ratio (1.29)

The win rate is within the typical range for NNFX systems (30–45%). However, the payoff ratio falls just above of 1.3, suggesting that even when wins occur, they provide with descent profitability.

Trade Expectancy ($29.52)

Positive expectancy means that each trade, on average, generates profit. However, the number is low, hinting at marginal overall value. Overtrading or weak signal filtering may be diluting edge.

Drawdown (Max 5.16%)

Well within the acceptable <10% risk ceiling imposed by NNFX and many proprietary trading firms. This indicates solid risk control and proper use of ATR-based SL settings.

Loss Sequences (Max 7.13, Avg 3.5)

A max of 7.13 consecutive losses is high and suggests poor performance in choppy or reversing markets. This drawdown streak could psychologically challenge live traders.

Conclusion:

These indicators together define the overall health of the system and its readiness for live use. ADX Directional Movement shows promise, but its reliability and profitability fall short of NNFX deployment standards.

Overall Diagnostic Table

NNFX Recommendations

• Retune or replace the C1 indicator → marginal profit factor and low payoff suggest deeper filtering is needed.
• Improve payoff ratio → pair with a sharper C2 to reduce false confirmations.
• Analyze per-pair performance → Some pairs like EURUSD and AUDNZD performed well.
• Compare vs Naked Baseline → If results are similar, the C1 adds little value.
• Consider alternate use → Possibly better as Confirmation 2 or part of a volume hybrid.

Final Assessment

ADX Directional Movement, as a Confirmation 1 indicator, shows partial viability under NNFX rules. It doesn’t fail outright but also doesn’t meet the profitability or consistency benchmarks expected from a robust C1. Its directional strength filtering offers value in trend-following conditions, but may over-trigger in consolidations.

With slight modifications or repositioning into a C2 role, it could become a helpful tool in an NNFX algorithm. Currently, it’s a marginal pass with clear room for improvement.

Pair-by-Pair Analysis

EURUSD
Summary: 16 trades | PF = 1.86 | Win % = 50% | Net = $249.29 | Drawdown = 2.67%
Delivered strong performance with a solid PF and low drawdown. Profitable and stable, showing the indicator works well in this pair’s moderate volatility.

AUDNZD
Summary: 18 trades | PF = 1.84 | Win % = 55.56% | Net = $250.19 | Drawdown = 3.83%
One of the best performers. Balanced accuracy and reward, likely due to clear trends and clean breaks in this cross pair.

EURGBP
Summary: 24 trades | PF = 1.26 | Win % = 45.83% | Net = $132.14 | Drawdown = 4.77%
Performed moderately. Reasonable results, but lacked the punch of the best performers. Signal frequency may need reducing.

AUDCAD
Summary: 30 trades | PF = 0.81 | Win % = 30% | Net = –$165.41 | Drawdown = 7.01%
Performed poorly. Low win rate and high drawdown suggest this pair doesn’t trend cleanly enough for this C1 to shine.

CHFJPY
Summary: 30 trades | PF = 1.08 | Win % = 53.33% | Net = $67.77 | Drawdown = 5.33%
Showed marginal profitability. Moderate drawdown and reliable accuracy, but not a standout performer.

GBPJPY
Summary: 24 trades | PF = 0.81 | Win % = 45.83% | Net = –$95.89 | Drawdown = 5.53%
Another underperformer. Struggled in high-volatility environments, indicating directional momentum was poorly captured.

USDCAD
Summary: 14 trades | PF = 0.61 | Win % = 35.71% | Net = –$267.06 | Drawdown = 6.49%
Significantly negative. Weakest metrics in the group, especially poor PF and low win rate.

USDSGD
Summary: 28 trades | PF = 1.50 | Win % = 39.29% | Net = $419.78 | Drawdown = 5.63%
Top performer overall. High net profit, solid PF. Shows great synergy with trend confirmation across this pair.

Overall Findings

Overall, results show high pair-dependence. Some currency pairs clearly align better with ADX Directional Movement as a C1—particularly USDSGD, AUDNZD, and EURUSD. Others underperform, indicating poor synergy or unreliable signals in choppier environments.

Conclusion

The ADX Directional Movement indicator brings a partial edge as a Confirmation 1 tool. While it demonstrates solid profitability in select pairs, its system-wide performance lacks consistency and fails to meet key NNFX thresholds. Traders may find better results either tuning this indicator further or repositioning it as a Confirmation 2.

The post This Indicator Crushed EURUSD — Can ADX Directional Movement Be Trusted in NNFX? appeared first on Neural Trading.

The No-Nonsense Forex (NNFX) strategy stands out for its disciplined, data-driven, and mechanical approach to algorithmic trading. Every component in the NNFX system must justify its inclusion through rigorous backtesting. The Confirmation 1 (C1) indicator, in particular, must play a pivotal role in validating entries after the Baseline signals a potential trade.

In this test, the Vortex Indicator was evaluated as a C1 within the NNFX structure. The default 20-period Simple Moving Average (SMA) served as the Baseline. The Volume filter used was a 14-period ADX with a 25 threshold, and the Exit strategy relied on Heiken Ashi candles. Testing spanned from January 1st, 2020 to December 31st, 2024 across eight major Forex pairs on the daily (D1) timeframe.

The results reveal how Vortex behaves across different market environments — from trending to ranging — and where it may fit within the NNFX framework.

Overall Performance Overview

Key Results Summary

Interpretation Based on NNFX Standards

Profit Factor (PF = 1.95)
A Profit Factor of 1.95 significantly exceeds the NNFX viability threshold of 1.30, indicating that the Vortex Indicator, as a C1, contributes positively to the system. It nearly doubles profit for every dollar lost, qualifying it as a strong contender.

Winning Rate and Payoff Ratio
With a win rate of 46.56% and a payoff ratio of 1.50, this balance is respectable. NNFX systems aim for 40–50% win rates with a payoff above 1.3–1.5. This combination indicates that Vortex captures winners of decent size with sufficient accuracy.

Trade Expectancy ($35.78)
Trade expectancy is positive, reflecting healthy profitability per trade. This value shows consistent system behavior without overtrading, making the Vortex suitable for longer-term D1 strategies.

Drawdown (4.37%)
Maximum drawdown remains safely under the 10% threshold favored in NNFX and prop firm funding programs. Risk is well-contained, and capital preservation is managed effectively.

Loss Sequences (Max 3.75, Avg 2.75)
Vortex experienced short loss streaks, highlighting its stability. This suggests good robustness during periods of market chop or consolidation.

These indicators together define the overall health of the system and its readiness for live use.

Overall Diagnostic Table

NNFX Recommendations

• Retain Vortex as a viable C1 → Metrics meet or exceed NNFX standards.
• Consider retuning Vortex parameters (VI_Length = 5) → Optimization per pair may yield higher PF.
• Use as-is with Baseline/Volume filters → Already performs well with standard SMA and ADX.
• Monitor performance during low-volatility periods → Avoid overfitting; Vortex may underperform in ranging markets.
• Test in C2 role for confirmation stacking → Its stability could reinforce weaker C1 signals.

Final Assessment

Vortex, when used as a Confirmation 1 indicator under default NNFX conditions, proves itself a robust and profitable addition to the system. The PF of 1.95 and strong risk control make it a standout among typical C1 candidates. Although individual pair performance varies, the system remains profitable overall with minimal drawdowns.

Its payoff and accuracy are balanced, and it may suit traders who prefer a smoother equity curve with fewer but higher-quality trades. With pair-specific adjustments, Vortex has the potential to elevate into elite territory or serve as a powerful C2 or filter.

Pair-by-Pair Analysis

AUDCAD
Summary: 14 trades | PF = 1.61 | Win % = 50% | Net = $209.30 | Drawdown = 3.91%
Performed well, with balanced accuracy and a solid PF. Indicates good trend-following potential.

AUDNZD
Summary: 14 trades | PF = 1.08 | Win % = 57.14% | Net = $28.88 | Drawdown = 4.71%
Flat performance. Win rate decent, but average win barely offset losses. Needs refinement.

CHFJPY
Summary: 18 trades | PF = 0.65 | Win % = 44.44% | Net = -$271.89 | Drawdown = 4.72%
Underperformed. Consistently negative expectancy. Signal likely failed in volatile chop.

EURGBP
Summary: 16 trades | PF = 1.36 | Win % = 56.25% | Net = $153.04 | Drawdown = 3.19%
Stable and reliable. Consistent with NNFX standards. One of the better-performing pairs.

EURUSD
Summary: 14 trades | PF = 0.21 | Win % = 14.29% | Net = -$447.14 | Drawdown = 7.05%
Poor accuracy led to steep losses. Likely reacted too often in consolidation. Not recommended.

GBPJPY
Summary: 14 trades | PF = 0.90 | Win % = 42.86% | Net = -$41.61 | Drawdown = 4.30%
Near-neutral performance. Some promise, but not consistently profitable.

USDCAD
Summary: 8 trades | PF = 0.80 | Win % = 37.5% | Net = -$72.48 | Drawdown = 4.50%
Few trades but failed to gain ground. Suggest testing with adjusted Baseline.

USDSGD
Summary: 10 trades | PF = 8.98 | Win % = 70% | Net = $742.16 | Drawdown = 2.54%
Outstanding outlier. Very high PF and win rate. Indicates ideal conditions for Vortex.

Overall Findings Table

Average PF across pairs = 2.07, lifted heavily by USDSGD. Most pairs performed moderately or better, with only two (EURUSD, CHFJPY) dragging the system into riskier territory.

Conclusion

The Vortex Indicator emerges as a credible C1 candidate for NNFX traders. While not flawless, its overall metrics validate its place in a rule-based system, especially when used with a solid Baseline and Volume filter. The key takeaway: pair-specific testing matters. When aligned with a compatible pair like USDSGD, Vortex can produce exceptional outcomes.

In short, Vortex is worthy of further exploration — either as a standalone C1 or a supporting C2. For algorithmic traders seeking a well-rounded, low-drawdown solution, this indicator delivers more than expected.

The post This One Indicator Beat the Odds in NNFX Testing — Here’s What We Found appeared first on Neural Trading.

In the No-Nonsense Forex (NNFX) methodology, the Confirmation 1 (C1) indicator plays a decisive role in filtering out false entries generated by the Baseline. It must validate the price direction with reliability, precision, and minimal lag. This week’s analysis explores the Grucha Percentage Index (GPI), tested as a Zero-Line Cross confirmation mechanism on the D1 timeframe. The system used the standard NNFX setup:

• Baseline : 20-period SMA
• Volume : 14-period ADX (> 25 threshold)
• Exit : Heiken Ashi reversal
• Settings: for Grucha Percentage Index Okresy were at 5 as demonstrated by the optimization process

The objective was to determine whether the GPI’s smoothed momentum crossing structure provides consistent trade confirmation across multiple FX pairs while maintaining the strict NNFX standards of profitability, low drawdown, and sustainable expectancy.

Overall Performance Overview

The results of optimization on 1 year gave the impression that this indicator was as good as a zero line cross as it is on a two line cross setting. However, across all pairs tested, the average win rate hovered near 38 %, while the profit factor consolidated around 1.0, producing no significant equity growth despite a moderate sample of 182 trades.
The system achieved an average expectancy of $ 23.95 per trade, yet a total net profit of – $ 686.47, confirming that gains on winning trades were insufficient to offset extended losing streaks.
The average loss per trade (– $ 44.31) exceeded the average win per trade ($ 61.29) only marginally, and the maximum drawdown remained contained (6.37 %), showing that capital protection was acceptable but profits evaporated due to a limited hit rate.

These figures indicate a system that maintained risk control but lacked statistical edge — a hallmark of a neutral or under-optimized C1 component.

Interpretation Based on NNFX Standards

In NNFX evaluation criteria, a Confirmation 1 indicator must:

1. Improve win consistency over the Baseline alone.
2. Enhance the Profit Factor (> 1.3 ideal).
3. Maintain drawdown under 10 %.
4. Exhibit stable performance across uncorrelated pairs.

The Grucha Percentage Index met the drawdown requirement on most pairs but failed the Profit Factor and Consistency standards.
Pairs such as USDSGD and AUDNZD posted strong profitability (Profit Factor > 1.2 – 2.8)USDSGD and AUDNZD, yet others like EURUSD, EURGBP, and CHFJPY collapsed below 0.7.
The dispersion of outcomes underscores that the GPI’s Zero-Line cross captures isolated trend bursts but struggles to adapt to varied volatility regimes.

Overall Diagnostic Table

NNFX Recommendations

• Do not use GPI (ZLC) as a standalone C1. Its neutrality indicates no consistent confirmation advantage. I would recommend using it as a two line cross instead as the results were fantastic!
• Potential improvement: test with higher smoothing parameters (Okresy ≥ 10) to mitigate noise.
• Alternative role: consider GPI as a secondary “momentum filter” paired with a faster C1 (e.g., RSI Crossover or Fisher Transform) to strengthen directional confidence.
• Baseline alignment: its delayed zero-cross makes it more reactive than predictive — acceptable for exit filters, not for entry validation.

Final Assessment

While visually appealing and mathematically elegant, the Grucha Percentage Index (ZLC) lacks the robustness required of a first-tier NNFX confirmation indicator.
Its profit factor ≈ 1.0 and sub-40 % win rate render it statistically indistinguishable from random expectancy when risk is normalized.
However, its low drawdown, controlled volatility, and clean cross structure suggest potential in composite systems or algorithmic filters where confirmation relies on confluence rather than singular signals.

Pair-by-Pair Analysis

AUDCAD

A balanced outcome with Profit Factor 1.10, Net Profit $ 34.20, and Drawdown 5.18 %AUDCAD. Performance was stable but lacked thrust. The average win doubled the loss ( $ 53 vs $ 22 ), yet the 68 % loss ratio neutralized results. Conservative but uninspiring.

AUDNZD

Delivered Profit Factor 1.21 and Net Profit $ 94.21AUDNZD. Half of trades were winners, and expectancy reached $ 5.23. The GPI’s responsiveness to medium-term swings in AUD pairs makes it one of the few bright spots in the test set.

CHFJPY

One of the weakest pairs, with Profit Factor 0.53, Net Loss $ – 573.22, and a heavy 9.41 % drawdownCHFJPY. Extended losing streaks ( 10 losses in a row ) indicate sensitivity to JPY volatility spikes and trend whipsaws.

EURGBP

Also underperformed: Profit Factor 0.61, Net Loss $ – 447.51, and Drawdown 9.82 %EURGBP. The indicator consistently misread sideways markets, showing a 32 % win rate. Most losses clustered in long positions against dominant GBP momentum.

EURUSD

The worst result overall with Profit Factor 0.32, Net Loss $ – 383.19, and only 18.75 % winning tradesEURUSD. The GPI’s lagging confirmation proved fatal in ranging conditions, missing key trend entries and triggering early losses.

GBPJPY

Produced Profit Factor 0.83 and Net Loss $ – 84.96, but maintained drawdown under 6 %GBPJPY. While loss-biased, average profit trades remained solid ($ 51 vs $ 41 loss), suggesting that trend entries were sound but rare.

USDCAD

Moderately negative with Profit Factor 0.65, Net Loss $ – 153.25, and drawdown 4 %USDCAD. Most damage came from false bearish signals during range compression. Momentum divergence lagged price, reducing accuracy.

USDSGD

The stand-out performer with Profit Factor 2.80, Net Profit $ 827.25, and drawdown 4.3 %USDSGD. Over 54 % win rate and average profit nearly 2.4× average loss show the GPI thrives in stable, directional markets like SGD-based pairs.

Overall Findings Table

Conclusion

The Grucha Percentage Index (Zero Line Cross) offers visual elegance and a smooth analytical structure but falls short of NNFX profitability benchmarks when used as a primary Confirmation 1 indicator.
Its performance varies drastically across pairs — showing potential in stable currencies like SGD but weakness in volatile or range-bound pairs such as EURUSD and CHFJPY.
While its drawdown profile remains contained, the lack of consistent edge renders it better suited as a secondary momentum filter or hybrid component in multi-indicator systems rather than a standalone NNFX C1 tool.

The post I Backtested the Grucha Percentage Index Across 8 Pairs — Here’s What Shocked Me! appeared first on Neural Trading.

Introduction

In the structured and empirically grounded world of No-Nonsense Forex (NNFX), every component of a trading system must earn its place through rigorous backtesting and statistical validation. The Grucha Percentage Index, an innovative oscillator designed to capture nuanced price action shifts, has been tested here as a Confirmation 1 (C1) indicator within the NNFX ecosystem.

This evaluation integrates the Grucha Percentage Index with the default Baseline (20-period SMA), the default Volume indicator (ADX 14 with threshold 25), and the standard Exit (Heiken Ashi candles). The objective was clear: to assess whether Grucha can effectively enhance signal quality and decision-making across varying market conditions.

We conducted backtests on 8 major Forex pairs over two timeframes: a 1-year snapshot (for pre optimization) and a robust 5-year span (for long-term viability). The results offer insight into how this indicator behaves in both trending and choppy markets and whether it can reliably serve as a first-line Confirmation in the NNFX architecture.

Overall Performance Overview (5-Year Testing)

Interpretation Based on NNFX Standards

Profit Factor (4.92)
The Grucha Percentage Index meets the NNFX minimum threshold of 1.30, signaling fantastic profitability over the long term. This makes it a contender for live usage or further building an algorithm around it as a C1.

Winning Rate (54.68%) and Payoff Ratio (1.45)
While the win rate slightly exceeds 50%, the payoff ratio is modest. This pairing suggests consistency rather than explosiveness. The system favors frequent but smaller gains, aligning with NNFX principles when risk controls are in place.

Trade Expectancy ($29.47)
A positive expectancy per trade, is a solid signal of structural potential. However, it hints that further optimization (especially in C2 or exit conditions) could unlock even stronger performance.

Drawdown (3.97%)
The system stays well below the 10% threshold accepted in prop firm evaluations. This level of drawdown reflects sound risk management and well-behaved equity curve behavior.

Loss Sequences (Avg 2.88 | Max 4,13)
Streaks of consecutive losses are controlled and do not show major instability. This implies the indicator does not overreact in sideways markets, though refinement in signal reliability could improve.

These indicators together define the overall health of the system and its readiness for live use.

Overall Diagnostic

NNFX Recommendations

• Refine confirmation entry logic — to improve payoff ratio without losing win rate.
• Pair with high-quality C2 — to boost signal selectivity and trade quality.
• Monitor per-pair behavior — focus on pairs that exceed PF > 1.5.
• Compare vs Naked Baseline — to confirm added value from Grucha Percentage Index.
• Explore Grucha as a C2 — the indicator’s consistency may work better as secondary confirmation.

Final Assessment

The Grucha Percentage Index displays real potential as a C1 indicator under the NNFX framework. While not explosive in profit generation, its amazing PF (4.92), solid win rate, and disciplined drawdown suggest it can be part of a robust system, especially if paired with a strong C2 and smart exit mechanics.

Some pairs underperform, but the system is far from erratic — this is a candidate for further refinement rather than outright replacement. The indicator shows consistent behavior, which is often more valuable than headline-grabbing returns.

Pair-by-Pair Analysis

AUDCAD
Summary: 24 trades | PF = 0.89 | Win % = 50.0 | Net = –$53.95 | Drawdown = 6.64%
Performed below par with a PF under 1.0 and break-even win rate. Likely struggled with low volatility. Verdict: Underperformed, needs filtering.

AUDNZD
Summary: 14 trades | PF = 28.01 | Win % = 92.86 | Net = $456.59 | Drawdown = 2.16%
Outstanding performance, nearly flawless execution. Possibly well-aligned with price behavior. Verdict: Top performer, ideal conditions.

CHFJPY
Summary: 30 trades | PF = 0.38 | Win % = 30.0 | Net = –$734.82 | Drawdown = 9.31%
Major underperformance with high loss streaks. Indicator likely failed in volatile reversals. Verdict: Avoid unless retuned.

EURGBP
Summary: 24 trades | PF = 2.03 | Win % = 50.0 | Net = $436.27 | Drawdown = 3.43%
Consistent results with high reward-to-risk despite average win rate. Verdict: Stable, good risk-adjusted return.

EURUSD
Summary: 16 trades | PF = 3.11 | Win % = 56.25 | Net = $344.86 | Drawdown = 2.29%
High PF and low drawdown make this a standout performer. Verdict: Highly viable.

GBPJPY
Summary: 12 trades | PF = 1.08 | Win % = 58.33 | Net = $18.78 | Drawdown = 2.61%
Break-even profit factor but decent win rate; needs tuning. Verdict: Marginal but consistent.

USDCAD
Summary: 8 trades | PF = 0.43 | Win % = 50.0 | Net = –$188.54 | Drawdown = 3.29%
Low activity and high average losses per trade. Verdict: Not suitable.

USDSGD
Summary: 18 trades | PF = 3.44 | Win % = 50.0 | Net = $774.50 | Drawdown = 2.00%
Strong performance driven by standout winners. Verdict: Excellent candidate.

Overall Findings

Average PF = 4.92 — this confirms outstanding overall viability, with standout performance in selective pairs and room for further algorithm building.

Conclusion

The Grucha Percentage Index earns an optimistic rating as a C1 indicator. With a Profit Factor of 4.92, solid drawdown control, and a stable win rate across multiple pairs, it has the foundational traits for success in a NNFX trading system. Pair-specific volatility and exit logic fine-tuning may unlock even greater performance.

While some pairs underwhelmed, strong results in EURUSD, USDSGD, and AUDNZD showcase its potential. With strategic adjustments, the Grucha Percentage Index could be elevated from experimental to exceptional.

The post Grucha Percentage Index as a Confirmation 1 Indicator (Two Lines Cross) in NNFX: 54% Win rate on over 5 years of data appeared first on Neural Trading.

In the world of algorithmic trading, few methodologies demand as much precision as the No-Nonsense Forex (NNFX) system. Its structure is built on empirical testing, logical sequencing, and strict adherence to quantitative results. Each element — from the Baseline to the Confirmation indicators — must prove its worth through measurable performance over several years and multiple currency pairs.

In this test, we put the Bulls vs Bears indicator under the microscope as a Confirmation 1 (C1) component within the NNFX framework. Using the default Baseline (20-period SMA), default Volume indicator (ADX 14, threshold 25), and Heiken Ashi exit strategy, the goal was to determine whether Bulls vs Bears can strengthen trade entries, improve confirmation accuracy, and ultimately increase long-term profitability.

Over eight major pairs and five years of historical data from January 1st 2020 to decembre 31st 2024, each backtest reveals not only profitability metrics but also how this indicator behaves in different market conditions — from volatile to range-bound, from trending to consolidating. The results tell a nuanced story about where Bulls vs Bears shines and where it struggles.

Overall Performance Overview

Key Results Summary

Interpretation Based on NNFX Standards

Profit Factor (PF = 0.85)

• A profit factor below 1.00 means the strategy loses money overall.
• In NNFX, a PF ≥ 1.30 is typically considered the minimum for a viable setup.
• Here, losses outweigh profits by about 15%.
  Conclusion: this C1 indicator is not profitable in its current form.

Winning Rate (36.87%) and Payoff Ratio (1.43)

• A low win rate can be acceptable if the payoff ratio is strong enough.
• However, with only 36% wins, a payoff of 1.43 isn’t high enough to sustain profitability.
• In good NNFX systems, you usually would minimally want to see 30–45% win rate with a payoff ratio > 2.0.

Conclusion: risk-to-reward management is decent, but not strong enough to offset low accuracy.

Trade Expectancy ($26.33)

• Expectancy per trade is positive, but the total net profit is negative, which indicates inconsistency or overtrading.
• With 174 trades, this suggests the C1 may be too permissive, producing too many false entries.

Conclusion: entry filtering likely needs refinement — the signal is too sensitive or frequent.

Drawdown (6.67%)

• A low drawdown indicates good risk management — well below the 10% “safe” line.
• The position sizing and stop logic seem consistent and disciplined.
• That Drawdown is usually considered safe for prop firm challenges.

Conclusion: Relative risk control is strong, even though profitability is weak.

Loss Sequences (3.88 avg / 8.25 max)

• Losing streaks are moderate and within typical algorithmic ranges.
• This pattern points toward a C1 that reacts too much in non-trending markets.

Conclusion: improving trend filtering (Baseline or Volume Filter tuning) could reduce unnecessary trades.

3. Overall Diagnostic

NNFX Recommendations

1. Retune or replace the C1 indicator
   → Reduce entry frequency with stricter confirmation or trend filters.
2. Improve the Payoff Ratio toward 1.8–2.0
   → Using a good C2, Volume and/or Baseline indicator can nullify false signals.
3. Analyze per-pair performance
   → Some pairs might already exceed PF > 1.3, masking overall weakness.
4. Compare vs. Naked Baseline
   → If results are similar, the C1 adds no real edge.
5. Consider alternate use
   → The indicator might perform better as a Confirmation 2 or Exit instead of C1.

Final Assessment

The Bulls vs Bears backtest shows that this indicator, as a Confirmation 1, is not yet viable under NNFX standards:

• Profit factor below 1
• Low win rate (<40%)
• Negative total return despite good risk control

However, the stable drawdown and payoff ratio above 1.4 suggest solid potential for improvement.
With better filtering and synchronization with the Baseline, this indicator could evolve into a useful tool — perhaps better suited as a secondary confirmation or exit signal rather than the main C1.

Pair-by-Pair Analysis

AUDCAD

Summary: 28 trades | PF = 0.91 | Win % = 35.7 | Net = – $77.27 | Drawdown = 7.23 %

This pair showed borderline neutrality. The Bulls vs Bears filter produced a nearly break-even performance with only a slight loss over 5 years. The 0.91 profit factor and 36 % win-rate indicate poor edge, but the drawdown remained moderate. Average win ($81.73) exceeded average loss (–$49.70), confirming positive reward-to-risk behavior, yet the frequency of losing trades eroded returns. The indicator was too sensitive in non-trending conditions, often reacting to short-term momentum that failed to develop.

AUDNZD

Summary: 20 trades | PF = 0.99 | Win % = 35 | Net = – $5.47 | Drawdown = 5.6 %

Performance was essentially flat. The 0.99 profit factor shows the system nearly broke even, confirming internal balance between gains and losses. Loss frequency (65 %) was high, but risk control limited overall drawdown. Average profit ($66) vs loss (–$36) implies a favorable payoff structure that could turn positive with better trend synchronization. Among all pairs, AUDNZD behaved most neutrally, suggesting Bulls vs Bears may align better with correlated or mean-reverting crosses.

CHFJPY

Summary: 24 trades | PF = 0.56 | Win % = 37.5 | Net = – $387.79 | Drawdown = 7.3 %

CHFJPY clearly underperformed. A 0.56 profit factor and –$388 net reveal consistent losses, largely from false bullish signals. Average win ($54.7) was smaller than average loss (–$58.7), meaning reward per risk unit was inverted. Ten-trade losing streaks show poor robustness in choppy markets typical of this pair. The indicator failed to identify genuine directional bias—likely due to JPY volatility clusters that confused the momentum readings.

EURGBP

Summary: 34 trades | PF = 0.77 | Win % = 41 | Net = – $231.19 | Drawdown = 8 %

The system again trended downward. Although the win-rate was slightly better, the payoff ratio (55 / – 50) wasn’t enough to overcome losses. EURGBP’s low volatility and mean-reverting tendencies penalized directional indicators like Bulls vs Bears. The eight-loss streaks emphasize limited trend-capture ability on D1. However, the equity curve was smoother than CHFJPY’s, implying the indicator was at least consistent even if unprofitable.

EURUSD

Summary: 18 trades | PF = 0.52 | Win % = 28 | Net = – $331.68 | Drawdown = 8.2 %

EURUSD was one of the weakest results. The low 28 % win-rate and 0.52 PF confirm structural inefficiency. While average wins ($72) slightly exceeded losses ($53), the signal timing was poor, generating many counter-trend entries. Nine-loss streaks indicate low resilience. As EURUSD is highly liquid and trend-resistant on D1, this indicator’s simple bullish/bearish interpretation struggles without a longer-term filter.

GBPJPY

Summary: 18 trades | PF = 1.13 | Win % = 44 | Net = +$53 | Drawdown = 5 %

GBPJPY was the only pair that turned positive. The 1.13 profit factor, 44 % win-rate, and low 5 % drawdown highlight better alignment between indicator signals and strong trends. Average win ($56) vs loss (–$40) shows a solid risk-reward profile. This pair’s volatility may have amplified true bullish/bearish separation, validating Bulls vs Bears as a momentum confirmation tool in trending, high-range markets.

USDCAD

Summary: 12 trades | PF = 0.59 | Win % = 33 | Net = – $243.54 | Drawdown = 6 %

This test was unprofitable but stable. A small sample of trades produced a 0.59 PF with controlled losses. Despite an acceptable average win ($88) vs loss (–$75), the low trade count and 33 % accuracy prevented any compounding. The indicator seems to misread consolidations around oil-driven reversals that characterize USDCAD’s behavior.

USDSGD

Summary: 20 trades | PF = 1.31 | Win % = 40 | Net = +$190.22 | Drawdown = 6 %

USDSGD delivered the best performance. With a 1.31 profit factor and positive expectancy ($9.5/trade), Bulls vs Bears performed well in a slower, steadier pair. The average win ($100) was roughly double the loss (–$51), demonstrating effective capture of directional moves. Modest drawdown (< 6 %) further proves the system’s consistency. This pair suggests the indicator works best in low-noise, moderately trending conditions.

Overall Findings

Average PF = 0.85, confirming overall unprofitability but with promising outliers.

Conclusion

The Bulls vs Bears indicator, when tested as a Confirmation 1 component under NNFX structure, produced mixed but valuable insights. It demonstrated excellent discipline in risk control, maintaining low drawdowns and consistent trade sizing. However, profitability remained elusive in most pairs, with the exception of GBPJPY and USDSGD, where stronger directional momentum allowed it to work effectively.

This suggests that Bulls vs Bears is not yet a reliable primary confirmation tool but can serve as an excellent secondary filter (C2) or even as an exit confirmation indicator when paired with a more robust trend detector. Its consistent structure, smooth risk profile, and occasional bursts of performance show that with refined conditions — such as adaptive ATR thresholds or volatility filters — it could become a useful element in a multi-indicator NNFX strategy.

Ultimately, this study reinforces what NNFX methodology teaches: data, not opinion, defines what stays in your algorithm. Bulls vs Bears may not pass as a C1 yet, but it earns its place in further experimentation and secondary system design.

The post Bulls vs Bears in NNFX Framework appeared first on Neural Trading.

What is the STIX indicator

As I continue this series of tests, I now present you the STIX indicator that I tested as a Confirmation 1 (C1) Indicator.

Stix is a two line cross indicator and looks clean with its default color settings. The high number of trades makes it is a relatively fast indicator that means it is possible that it could be used as an exit indicator. Here is what it looks like:

The NNFX Testing Framework

For those who don’t know yet, the first confirmation indicator in a NNFX framework is the main entry signal for a trade. Its goal is to trigger the trades as a new trend forms. However, to have a complete NNFX framework algorithm, you will need to add a second confirmation (which is not part of these tests), a baseline indicator such as the simple moving average, a volume indicator such as the ADX and an exit indicator like Heiken Ashi.

For this series, I will be presenting you a pseudo complete algorithm that can be considered sub par at best. In fact, I will be using the benchmark indicators from the NNFX method. These are SMA period 20 for a baseline, ADX period 14 and threshold 25 for a volume and Heiken Ashi for an exit.

That version of the algorithm also includes the trailing stop, the inverted signal and the one candle rules.

The tests were performed using 8 currency pairs over 5 years of test to provide you with a descent sample size to really give a good idea of the results that indicator gave. I tested it using $10 000 as a start point and 2% risk per trade.

New To The Series?

Discover the series from the beginning. From the methodology, the selection of the sample and the complete rules for each tests. Where the data is shown and the results speak for themselves.

Basic NNFX Testing

Pair-by-Pair break down

Let’s dig in these results!

USDCAD: Poor Performance, High Loss Rate

• Profit: $-$755,42
• Win Rate: 20%
• Payoff Ratio: 0,55

USDSGD: Mildly Positive but Inconsistent

• Profit: $123,68
• Win Rate: 29,41%
• Payoff Ratio: 2,71

AUDCAD: Consistently Unprofitable

• Profit: -$142,74
• Win Rate: 26,67%
• Payoff Ratio: 2,15

AUDNZD: Moderate Losses, Slightly Better Win Rate

• Profit: -$131,46
• Win Rate: 34,62%
• Payoff Ratio: 1,5

CHFJPY: Heavily Negative with High Drawdown

• Profit: -984,21
• Win Rate: 28,57%
• Payoff Ratio: 0,8

EURGBP: Best Performing Pair

• Profit: 160,88
• Win Rate: 45,24%
• 1,42

EURUSD: Break-Even Outcome

• Profit: $4,5
• Win Rate: 43,75%
• Payoff Ratio: 1,3

GBPJPY: Loss-Making but Some Promise

• Profit: -$303,65
• Win Rate: 41,67%
• Payoff Ratio: 0,71

Overall Insights

The STIX indicator, as a C1 in NNFX rules, shows mixed reliability, with some pairs being borderline usable and others clearly underperforming. Win rates hover mostly under 35%, suggesting a potential issue with signal timing or filtering. This does not mean the indicator is completely useless, this means that it does not fit in that particular algorithm, especially combined with the basic indicators.

Overall Metric Observations

Now that we looked at the metrics for each pair individually, let’s take a look at the data as a whole.

From a data standpoint, this indicator is not performing so well in that algorithm’s context. It lost around 20% of the account over 5 years and had a very low payoff ratio. That combined with a massive drawdown and a really big number of consecutive losses makes it non viable as a C1 for that algorithm.

The NNFX system is meant to be a whole and this indicator could maybe find a spot as an exit indicator or even a C2. More tests would have to be conducted in order to find that out.

Essentials Of Trading

If you are building your foundation as a trader, this kind of content comes in handy when your framework is already structured.

In my Essentials Of Trading course, I am offering a solid base and foundation to start a successful trading career. You can start Here:

Essentials Of Trading

Conclusion

As a part of any statistical analysis, it is important to mention that even lesser results are part of the process. The indicator is not necessarily bad, it may be just out of its good context.

My take on that indicator is that it is sub par for the NNFX format. If you are looking to build a NNFX algorithm, you might not want spend too much time on that indicator as it proved to give very poor results on a sample size that was adequate. You should invest your attention into a better, more reliable indicator as a C1.

The post Testing STIX Indicator appeared first on Neural Trading.

Moving Average Delta as a C1 Indicator in the NNFX System

As a part of the NNFX indicator series, I have the pleasure to present you today the Moving Average Delta. I tested it as a confirmation 1 indicator with the same methodology offered since the beginning of the series. That indicator can boast profits of $1451,60$ and a win rate over 51% after 5 years and over 214 trades.

As previously mentioned, in the trading business, the first achievement to reach is not to lose money and this indicator proves to be a valuable asset by doing just that. This indicator is a classic zero line cross and from the number of trades performed, it is on the slow side. It most probably have some good potential especially as a C2 indicator.

Here is how it looks like:

Testing Setup

• Strategy Base: No Nonsense Forex (NNFX) Daily Chart Algorithm with default volume, baseline and exit indicators
• Role: Confirmation 1 (C1)
• Pairs Tested: AUDCAD, AUDNZD, CHFJPY, EURGBP, EURUSD, GBPJPY, USDCAD, USDSGD
• Period: January 1st 2020 – December 31st 2024
• Risk Management: 2% risk per trade split in two positions
• Stop Loss/Trail Settings: Based on ATR multipliers

All backtests used the Moving Average Delta with a 20-period setting and ADX Period 14 with a threshold of 25 and the Heiken Ashi crossing signal as an exit indicator. Trade entries followed strict NNFX confirmation logic with no discretionary overrides.

Key Metrics Summary

Insights & Commentary

• Total Profit: $1,451.12 across all pairs.
• Winning Pairs: 6 out of 8 pairs were profitable.
• Win Rate: Over 51% average across the board. This is a good win rate even if you would consider a payoff ratio of 1.00.
• Payoff Ratio: The average reward-to-risk ratio exceeded 1.2 on average. This means that winning trades are bigger then losing trades. Combine this to a win rate over 50% is where it gains it’s statistical edge.
• Drawdowns: The maximal drawdowns are kept under 6% across all these pairs. I cannot stress enough that this is key to a successful trading strategy. Whether you are planning to trade for a prop firm or with your own money.

Optimization

This is a phenomenal indicator to start an algorithm with. Keep these things in mind:

• It would benefit greatly of a second confirmation indicator to refine the entries.
• The accessory indicators, volume, baseline and exit, are sub-par and so the whole strategy would benefit from picking indicators that outperforms these.

Essentials Of Trading

If you are building your foundation as a trader, this kind of content comes in handy when your framework is already structured.

In my Essentials Of Trading course, I am offering a solid base and foundation to start a successful trading career. You can start Here:

Essentials Of Trading

Final Thoughts

The verdict is clear, this is a fantastic indicator to build a profitable trading strategy. The Moving Average Delta is a serious contender for a spot as a NNFX building block. I personally like it as I find that zero line cross indicators often underperform in comparison to chart or two line cross types. Once a system shall be polished using this indicator, it can really shine.

Remember that you are looking for a statistical advantage and a repeatability over time. A critical point of a good system is the synergy from all your indicators combined together. Also note that this number of trades is the minimum I would consider to be a viable sample size. If you end up with a number lower then 200 on the total trades, you should seek to expand your sample to reach that number so you know your results can be taken seriously.

The post Testing the Moving Average Delta (NNFX) appeared first on Neural Trading.

To officially start this series I have the pleasure to bring you real data and results from a very classic and vastly used indicator for NNFX systems. Since the creator VP has named that indicator in his personal top 100 indicators, it has become very famous among algorithm traders. You can find his website here.

Let’s recap the goal of that series. I want to introduce indicators and demonstrate how good they can really perform in a structured rule based context. That said, the basic “Naked” algorithm composed of a SMA 20 period for a baseline, Heiken Ashi for an exit and ADX as a volume indicator is what we can call a half descent algorithm. You can see it’s very basic results here.

Note that the results presented in this article are with the use of only one of the two required for a full NNFX algorithm to function. That said, this indicator can certainly fit into a different context like an algorithm with a lower time frame, a triple filter one or maybe a reversal one. However, I will only present the results from the former as this is the goal of that series.

I used the very same sample size as well as the same pairs I used for the benchmark article.

What is the SSL Indicator?

The SSL Channel (Semafor Signal Line) is an overlay on the chart presented either as two lines crossing or a single line version. It works like a moving average crossover, but instead of using price closes, it uses an SMA of the high and low prices. Here is how it looks like:

How I Tested It

System Framework

• Baseline: 20-period SMA
• C1: SSL Indicator (Lb = 10)
• Volume Filter: ADX(14) above 25
• Entry Rules:
  • Price must not be more than 1.5× ATR away from baseline.
  • SSL must confirm the trend:
    • For Buy: SSL crosses below price and shows a new upward trend.
    • For Sell: SSL crosses above price and shows a downward trend.
  • Baseline and SSL trend must agree.
  • ADX must be above threshold.
• Exit Indicator: Heiken Ashi Exit – signals trend reversal to close trades.
• Trailing Stop: Begins at 2× ATR, moves by 0.5× ATR steps, protected with 1.5× ATR offset.

Backtest Details

• Pairs: AUDCAD, AUDNZD, CHFJPY, EURGBP, EURUSD, GBPJPY, USDCAD, USDSGD
• Timeframe: Daily candles
• Period: Jan 1, 2020 to Dec 31, 2024
• Lot Sizing: Risk-adjusted (2% split into 2 trades)

Results Overview

Key Observations:

The SSL is a clear upgrade from the Basic NNFX setup that was a clear loss over time. The profit factor is above 1.3, the payoff ratio is above 2 and the win rate is quite good. That is combined to a max drawdown of 4%. VP was not right, that indicator is wonderful!

Should You Use SSL as Your C1?

Benefits

• Excellent risk/reward performance
• Easy-to-read visual structure
• Enhances trend-following precision

Potential Downsides

• May lag or whipsaw in volatile ranges
• Generates fewer signals — not ideal for scalping

It is important to understand that with a sample size of 114 trades on the backtest, which is only 57 trades with 2 positions taken, there is not enough data to be conclusive about this indicator. I recommend testing it with double that sample before proceeding to the C2 indicator in your setup.

Final Thoughts

While the SSL isn’t perfect, is an awesome indicator in the NNFX system. No wonder it’s so popular in the algorithmic trading community. If you do pick that indicator as your C1, I recommend seeking a slower C2 indicator as this one can be on the fast side of it’s class.

The post SSL Backtest in NNFX appeared first on Neural Trading.