About

APTF editorial policy: the rules for our forex materials

The APTF editorial policy sets out the rules by which material gets onto the site. They were not written for decoration: every point came out of a specific mistake that is easy to make in a field where promises of forex earnings sell better than calculations.

Four prohibitions

01We do not promise returns

Not on the front page, not in the calculations, not in the examples. Earnings on forex are promised nowhere here. Any result figure comes with the word «model» and a list of assumptions.

prohibition 1

02We do not give individual recommendations

Not on trades, not on brokers, not on the deposit size of a particular reader. We describe the mechanics; the decision is yours.

prohibition 2

03We do not publish other people's statistics without a source

Claims such as «90 % of traders lose money» are either accompanied by a reference or examined as unverifiable.

prohibition 3

04We do not pretend to be psychologists or doctors

Where the topic moves onto the territory of addictive behaviour, we say so directly and refer you to a specialist.

prohibition 4

How we handle numbers

Every number is either calculated or referenced: There is no third option. A number «from experience» is marked as an estimate and is not used in calculations.
Thresholds are consistent across pages: If a win rate of 45 % counts as working on one page, it cannot be 50 % on another without an explanation.
One error is fixed everywhere: A discrepancy found is corrected on every page where the same number appears, not only where it was noticed.
The review date is stated: At the bottom of every page there is the date on which the claims were checked.

How we handle sources

Claims about the market, brokers and regulators require a primary source: an official document, a company disclosure or a regulator's publication. A retelling in a blog and a picture from social media do not count as a source.

Claims about human behaviour rest on effects described in the literature — loss aversion, the disposition effect, the gambler's fallacy. We name the effect and describe how it works, but we do not retell particular studies as proof of our numerical examples: the numbers in the examples are models and are labelled as models.

How we check a claim about behaviour

With numbers everything is clear: they can be recalculated. It is harder with claims of the kind «after a losing run the inclination to risk grows». Such statements pass three filters before they reach a page.

01Is there an observable sign

The claim has to leave a trace that can be found in a trade report. «The inclination to risk grows» turns into «average risk after a loss is higher than average risk after a profit».

filter 1

02Can it be refuted

If a wording fits any outcome, it is useless. A claim that cannot be refuted by data does not get onto the site.

filter 2

03Does it change an action

If not a single change to the rules follows from the statement, it stays a curious fact. Those we either reword until they lead to an action, or remove.

filter 3

The third filter cuts out the most material — and that is deliberate. Texts about trading psychology fill up easily with true but useless observations; the test «what will the reader do differently» leaves only what makes the page worth opening.

What we do with other people's claims

A separate difficulty of the topic is the abundance of figures without a source that migrate from article to article. The rules for dealing with them are as follows.

Four types of claim and four different ways of handling them. The difference is visible right in the text of the pages.

Type of claim	What we do	Example on the site
A number with a primary source	We give it with a link to the document and state what exactly was measured	Broker disclosures: the share of loss-making accounts for the quarter
A figure with no source	We examine it as unverifiable and explain what is missing from it	«90 % of traders blow up» in the material on myths
An effect described in the literature	We name the effect and how it works, but we make the numerical examples our own and label them as models	Loss aversion and the disposition effect
The author's personal experience	We do not use it as proof: an individual result on the market is random by construction	There is not a single success story on the site

What will never be here

+An examination of the mechanicsHow a decision is built, what happens to it and what it costs.

+Open arithmeticFormulas in full, with assumptions and the limits of their applicability.

−Selling courses and signalsNeither our own nor anyone else's. The absence of a sale is part of the design: the site should have no reason to overstate the prospects.

−Success stories as an argumentAn individual result on the market is random, and the survivors tell their story more often than the losers. As proof this does not work.

How we decide what to write about

The plan of materials is formed not by search volume but by the intersection of three conditions. A topic that meets fewer than two does not get onto the site.

01The question is actually asked

Confirmed by search engine suggestions or by readers' letters. An invented topic looks plausible and is read by nobody.

condition 1

02There is a verifiable answer

The answer can be reduced to a formula, to an observable sign or to a primary source. If only a retelling of opinions is possible, the topic is left without material.

condition 2

03The answer changes an action

After reading, the reader does something differently: introduces a rule, changes a number, starts measuring. Otherwise you get an interesting text with no consequences.

condition 3

Because of the third condition several popular topics are absent from the site — for example, reviews of books on trading psychology. There is demand for them, and a verifiable answer too, but no change in the reader's actions happens after such material.

Language and presentation

Some of the rules concern not the facts but the way they are set out. Each of them came out of a piece of material that had to be rewritten.

How we write and how we do not

+A number next to a claim«A run of five stops at a 45 % win rate occurs in 92 cases out of a hundred» instead of «losing runs are normal».

+An action instead of an appeal«The stop is placed as an order at the same time as the entry» instead of «be disciplined».

+Assumptions namedA model example is always accompanied by the list of conditions under which it holds.

−Exclamatory generalisations«Psychology is 80 % of success». The number cannot be checked, and the claim changes not a single action.

−An appeal to fear«If you do not do this, you will lose everything». Pressure instead of an argument; verifiable content is zero.

−False simplicity«Just three steps and you are a disciplined trader». Timelines on the site are named honestly, even when they are unpleasant.

Corrections

We assume there will be errors: there are many calculations on the site, and the formulas are linked to each other. The procedure for handling an error report is described on the contacts page: reproducing the calculation, finding the cause and checking every page where the same number appears.

Material corrections that change the conclusion of a piece are marked in the text of the page rather than made silently.

Frequently asked questions

Why are there no broker reviews or ratings on the site?

Because an honest rating requires a methodology, access to data and constant updating, while a dishonest one is advertising. We do neither and stay within our own subject: the trader's behaviour.

Will you take an article or a link for money?

No. Publications, reviews and links are not for sale here, and we do not examine letters of that kind.

What do you think of other people's promises of returns?

As the main marker by which material can be sorted. Claims of that sort are examined in myths about trading.