JA//SYSTEMS eagle mark JA//SYSTEMS

Services

I build and audit trading systems like capital depends on it.

Because mine does. Everything below uses the same pipeline my own systems go through: look-ahead-free validation, pessimistic cost modeling, fail-closed risk code, and reports that state the deflated number next to the headline. If you want someone to confirm your backtest is amazing, I'm the wrong hire.

System Audit & Fix

MOST REVEALING

from $350

Your EA or backtest, examined the way I examine my own, for the defects that quietly kill accounts.

  • ▸ Look-ahead & data-leakage hunt with control-run proof of any bias found
  • ▸ Live-vs-backtest parity check: does the running code trade the strategy you validated?
  • ▸ Risk-layer review: kill-switches, fail-open sizing paths, prop-firm rule alignment
  • ▸ Selection-bias deflation of your headline numbers into honest planning bands
  • ▸ Written report, ranked by severity, with concrete fixes, not vague advice

Fixed-scope. You get the same document format I publish for my own systems.

Start a conversation

EA Development

FLAGSHIP

from $900

A complete MT5 trading system built to institutional hygiene, not a script that fires orders.

  • ▸ Strategy translated into pure, testable signal logic, backtestable without a terminal
  • ▸ Look-ahead-free backtest engine with pessimistic fills and real spread costs
  • ▸ Fail-closed risk layer: equity kill-switches, daily limits, account-rule alignment
  • ▸ Trade journaling, Telegram ops alerts, heartbeat + watchdog supervision
  • ▸ Full handover: source, tests, deployment guide, and the validation report

I decline builds whose strategy fails validation; you'll know before you pay for automation.

Start a conversation

Backtest Validation

BEFORE YOU FUND IT

from $500

Independent validation of a strategy you already have, before real money finds the flaw for you.

  • ▸ Reconstruction of your results on a clean, no-look-ahead engine
  • ▸ Out-of-sample and year-by-year consistency testing
  • ▸ Monte Carlo drawdown analysis: what losing streak is normal for this system?
  • ▸ Multiple-testing assessment: is your result an edge, or the luckiest of N tries?
  • ▸ Go / no-go verdict with the deflated numbers you should actually plan on

The most valuable outcome is sometimes 'do not deploy this.' That verdict is included in the price.

Start a conversation

Pricing is indicative and scoped per project after a short discovery call; complex multi-system work is quoted individually.

Why this is different

Most freelance EA work automates whatever it's handed and calls the job done when orders fire. The expensive failures come later, from things that were never checked: a backtest quietly reading the future, sizing that rounds up when the account can't be read, a "validated" strategy whose live code trades different rules, risk limits that don't match the prop firm's actual breach clock.

I've found every one of those in real systems, including my own. That's the difference you're paying for: not code that runs, but a system whose live behavior, research claims, and account rules have been forced to agree with each other, in writing.