Paper results can look stronger than they are when every simulated entry receives a perfect fill. An execution slippage review asks whether the paper result depends on assumptions that might break under real market conditions.
Trading Boy does not execute live trades, hold funds, or provide financial advice. This review helps inspect simulated evidence. It cannot prove live slippage, liquidity, exchange routing, latency, fees, or future returns.
Use this table after a paper sample closes or when a single result looks unusually strong. The goal is to decide whether the simulated result is robust enough for more paper testing, not to approve live trading.
| Assumption | Review question | Risk if ignored | Paper-mode adjustment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry fill | Was the entry marked at a price a real order could likely receive? | Paper PnL assumes perfect timing. | Add a conservative entry offset. |
| Exit fill | Was the exit price realistic during volatility? | Wins are overstated and losses understated. | Review worst-case and midpoint exits. |
| Fees | Were fees included in the paper result? | Small-edge strategies look better than they are. | Track gross and net simulated PnL. |
| Spread | Was the spread wide relative to target and stop? | The setup may depend on a fill inside the spread. | Flag wide-spread entries as execution-sensitive. |
| Liquidity | Was the simulated position size realistic for the market? | Paper size ignores order-book depth. | Reduce simulated size or exclude thin markets. |
| Latency | Did the setup require immediate action? | Delayed action can turn the paper setup into a chase. | Add a timeout or late-entry skip rule. |
Paper trade: A simulated SOL breakout entry shows a strong paper win. The journal records the trigger price, exit target, stop distance, and a Telegram review prompt.
Execution review: The trade fired during a fast candle. The paper entry used the trigger price, but the next realistic review price was higher. The spread was wider than usual and the stop distance was tight relative to the move.
Decision: The result is marked execution-sensitive. The paper strategy stays active, but the next sample adds a conservative entry offset and a late-entry timeout. The review is recorded in the post-trade review template so the next sample can compare raw and adjusted results.
Slippage changes the conclusion when small paper edges disappear after conservative fills, when stop distance is too tight for the spread, when exits assume perfect timing, or when the paper position is too large for the market being reviewed.
Slippage can stay a note when the setup has wide enough targets, conservative paper fills already exist, and the review decision does not depend on one precise entry. Even then, it should be documented before the sample is compared with a benchmark.
Use the risk-reward calculator and position size calculator to understand how a small fill change affects the simulated setup. Then use paper trading results evaluation to decide whether the adjusted result still supports the same next action.
If slippage changes the interpretation, update one rule at a time. Add a skip rule for late entries, reduce simulated size for thin markets, or require a wider target before the setup is eligible. Avoid rewriting the whole system after one noisy paper trade.
Keep the original paper result and the adjusted review result side by side. The original result shows what the simulator recorded. The adjusted result shows how sensitive the decision is to fills, fees, and liquidity. Do not hide either number; the comparison is the evidence.
When a strategy only works under perfect fills, label the sample as execution-sensitive and keep it in paper mode. When the adjusted result still supports the same rule-fit conclusion, the next review can focus on process quality instead of fill assumptions. That distinction keeps the journal honest.
If the adjusted review changes the decision, document the exact assumption that changed it. That makes the next paper sample testable instead of vague.
It is a review of simulated fill assumptions, fees, latency, liquidity, stop distance, and execution gaps before trusting paper trading results.
Paper trading can estimate or simulate slippage, but it does not prove live fills, liquidity, latency, or exchange behavior.
Mark it execution-sensitive when the result depends on tight fills, thin liquidity, fast entries, wide spreads, stop placement, or fee assumptions.