that was funny but makes sense for the most part.
It does.
Two things to bear in mind, in this context ...
(i) The more you're aware of and able to discern "the kind of systems that might have something in them and appear to be based on sound underlying principles and are potentially worth backtesting" (and that's a skill one gradually develops by understanding price action and market behavio(u)r and by gaining experience both in terms of understanding statistics/probability and of screen-time), the less
need you'll have, to "find systems to backtest" because all the time you'll also gradually be acquiring the ability to develop your own, and (unlike the stuff you can dig up from other places to backtest) that - when it happens - will be something that actually suits your own style, wishes, needs, abilities, techniques, time-frames, trade-durations, risk-management parameters and all the rest of it (without all of which it will have extremely limited if any value to you anyway);
(ii) The
more readily backtestable (is there such a word? yes, maybe ...) a system is, i.e. the more automable (or as they perhaps say in America "automatable"?) it is, the
less likely it is to have a genuine edge - I'm not just saying "that's how it tends to work out": I'm saying much more than that, I'm saying that there are
directly causal and reliable reasons for that being how it works out.
So it's another +1 for "noggin", from me ...
