forex-scalping.com

Demo accounts all lie a little. The question is how much, and in which direction. I've been comparing demos against live accounts for years, on the brokers I use, and I've ended up with a rough ranking of which kinds of demo environment mislead the least.

Most misleading, in my experience: demos with instant fills at the exact price clicked, no slippage at all, and spreads that stay suspiciously tight during news. They teach you to expect conditions that don't exist.

Somewhat misleading: demos fed by the same price stream as live, but filled by a simulator. The prices are right, but the fills are better than live, especially during fast moves. Most of the demos I've used fall into this group.

Least misleading: a small live account. Not a demo at all, I know, but for a scalper there's no substitute. A live account with 0.01 lot trades costs very little and shows you real fills, real slippage, real rejections.

A few things I check whenever I'm judging a demo:

Do spreads widen at the daily rollover the way they do on live?
Do market orders during a US release fill at the price clicked, or slip?
Are partial fills ever shown on larger sizes?
Does the demo server have the same stop and freeze levels as the live one?

If a demo fails two or more, I only use it for testing platform features. Which demo has come closest to live for you?

I'd push back a little on the small live account being the least misleading option, at least at 0.01 lots. It's much closer than a demo, but micro orders don't always get the same treatment as the size you'll actually trade.

On some brokers tiny orders get filled internally and almost never slip, while a 1 or 2 lot market order during a fast move gets real slippage. So a live micro account can teach you the same comfortable lesson as a decent demo, just more expensively.

The test I'd suggest: once you're ready, put the same setup on at 0.01 and at your normal size within the same week and log the fill against the price you clicked. If the slippage numbers look the same, fine. If they don't, the micro account was flattering you.

Commission is another thing to check. Some raw accounts have a minimum charge per ticket, which makes 0.01 trades look worse than they really are at size. That one cuts the other way, but it still distorts the numbers.

Have you ever compared slippage between micro size and your normal size on the same live account? I'd be curious whether yours matched.

A fourth category worth adding to the ranking: tick replay with real variable spreads and deliberately bad assumptions. It isn't live, but it can be less misleading than most demos because you get to choose how pessimistic it is.

What I do is replay real tick data and add a fixed penalty to every market fill, something like 0.2 pips per side on EURUSD and more during the first minute after a release. I also reject a small share of orders at random around news.

If a scalp still makes money under those rules, I trust it more than any demo result. If it only works with perfect fills, I know that before spending a cent, which is the main thing a demo is supposed to tell me and usually doesn't.

The weak spot is that replay can't show you queue position or how your broker behaves when the book thins. So I'd still finish with a small live run, just with a clearer idea of what I'm testing for.

Your checklist would work well as a settings list for this too. Spread at rollover, slippage on US releases, partial fills on size: all three can be modelled once you've measured them on live.