Why It's Wrong
Why Simply Merging Trade Lists Is Wrong
⚠️ The Naive Approach Gives Wrong Results
The most intuitive approach — combining all trades from all EAs into one big trade list sorted by date — produces results that look right but are mathematically incorrect for any EA that scales position sizes.
Here's why simple trade merging fails:
No Shared Balance
When you merge trade lists, each trade's profit/loss is calculated based on the balance at the time of that individual EA's backtest. But on a real account, all EAs share the same balance. If EA #1 just had a $2,000 drawdown, the account balance is lower — which means EA #2's lot size calculation would produce smaller lots. The merged approach doesn't capture this.
No Lot Scaling Interaction
Most EAs calculate lot sizes as a percentage of account balance. When five EAs share one account, the lot sizing for each EA depends on what every other EA has done up to that point. This compound interaction is completely lost when you merge pre-calculated trade lists.
No True Drawdown Stacking
Individual backtest reports show each EA's drawdown independently. But drawdown stacking — when multiple EAs draw down simultaneously — is the primary risk of running multiple EAs. Simply overlaying equity curves underestimates this risk because it doesn't account for the compounding effect on a shared balance.
Margin Conflicts Ignored
Multiple EAs opening positions simultaneously consume margin from the same pool. If five EAs each use 10% of available margin individually, they could collectively demand 50% — or more if positions overlap. Simple merging doesn't check for margin availability.