Every trading scam fails at least one of these ten checks. Most fail at three or four before you even look at the numbers.
Was the config chosen after seeing the results?
A "PF 2.21" is often the best of a hundred configs, picked after seeing the out-of-sample — lookahead bias. The honest walk-forward figure was 1.65. Ask how many configs were tried, and whether the winner was chosen on in-sample or out-of-sample.
Does the strategy assume a fill at the exact trigger price?
Breakout strategies with gap-throughs get filled worse than the backtest assumes. One strategy's first pass was PF 3.64 with 100% winning months; honest fills cut it to 1.49. Sharpe above 3 — or 100% winning months — means audit the fills, not applause.
Is this the survivor of many attempts?
A seller runs ten accounts and shows you the three that won. The "verified" track record is the top of a distribution you can't see the rest of. Ask to see the losers. If they can't show them, that's the answer.
Does the model see the future?
"Self-trains on each new candlestick" is retraining on the data it's predicting. Same with filtering today's trades on today's close. If the strategy uses a signal that didn't exist at decision time, it's cheating.
How many trades?
PF 5.91 sounds extraordinary until you learn it's 15 trades over 2.5 years. A profit factor on a tiny sample is noise wearing a number. Under ~50 trades it's a hypothesis; under 15 it's a rumor.
Are slippage and commission in?
Pre-cost and post-cost are different claims. One revalidation dropped from PF 1.62 to 1.47 adding real costs — "real edge" became "flat." If costs aren't stated, assume they're missing.
Is the headline about what's absent?
"No martingale, no grid" is not a profit claim. It's a statement about what the strategy doesn't do — and it's only a selling point because everyone learned grids blow up. When the headline is about what's absent, the profit claim is absent too.
Where's the untuned window?
In-sample results prove the strategy fits the past. Out-of-sample — a window the parameters never saw — is the only test that means anything. A strategy that wins in-sample and dies out-of-sample is the rule, not the exception.
Is the "track record" a simulation?
A "performance monitor" on a demo server is a simulation — restartable, seedable, no real fills. Live, third-party-verified, auditable capital is a different category of evidence.
What does the fine print actually say?
Every scam carries its own verdict, unread: "This EA cannot profit on live accounts." "Past performance is not indicative of future results." In a subscription product that's not legalese — it's the business model stated plainly. Read it before the sales page.