Having wiped out my demo account in 8 days using Fusion, I am now trying again on a fresh demo account to try and comply with their 30 day trading results demand. This is day 1 and so far it is down. There are 6 deals using High Rider all on the same currency pair. The stop loss is 210 and the TP is 12. Tha means that I need 18 wins to 1 loss to break even. There are another 2 deals on super volcano that have no stop loss or limit.
For TradeRunner:
I half accept your point… except that they did provide back-test results to support the live trading results from the competition (plus I ran my own tests to confirm what they were telling me).
You have to be sensible and accept that market personality changes from time to time but with a year or so of back-tests plus the live trading results to hand, it wasn’t unreasonable to expect the EAs to do well for a good few weeks at the very least and they promised that they’d be continuing to research things to improve the systems as neccessary / where possible, so…
“Did they deliberately create a losing EA? Maybe not.”
… of course not - for a start, THEY didn’t create the EAs - the individual developers did.
“Did they know there wasn’t much chance of longer term success? Probably so!”
…absolutely and they were 100% upfront about the likelihood of LONG TERM success (hence their pledge to continue research / development, etc.)
For Dancyn (and TradeRunner):
Here’s my other point… people seem to have focussed exclusively on Fusion which is blatantly an aggressive EA (you only have to look at the results it achieved prior to the launch and/or read their own admission that they only really adapted the risk allocation between the component strategies) but, more than that, it was a FREE bonus! - everyone had the chance to watch the individual EAs trading live (so the behaviour of each component of Fusion was completely open for people to see) and the strategies were all quite clearly explained in the manuals within the member area so anyone with half a brain should have been able to spot the fact that combining 6 EAs which individually traded okay / quite well on a $1,000 account would sensibly require at least a $6,000 account (with the same 200:1 leverage and micro-lots capabilities as the competition accounts) to stand a chance of them trading together with any degree of safety.
Unfortunately, as happens with the hordes of $97 “scambots”, people are overtaken by greed (“hmmmmmm - I have a $1,000 live account so I’ll just throw this latest $97 super EA on it, trade with overly aggressive settings and I’ll definitely be a millionaire by next week!”) and therein lies the whole issue.
For Dancyn:
“There are 6 deals using High Rider all on the same currency pair. The stop loss is 210 and the TP is 12. Tha means that I need 18 wins to 1 loss to break even.”
Duh! - the manual DOES tell you that it:
- ONLY trades one pair (EURUSD)
- can open up to 10 positions
- has an average 210 pip SL
- has an average 12 pip TP
Look at the HiRIDER back-test for the last 18 months - yes, there’ll be losing trades but the equity curve is still upwards the whole time so what’s your point? Still expecting that Holy Grail EA which only ever wins to jump out and land in your lap?
“There are another 2 deals on super volcano that have no stop loss or limit.”
Duh! - again!! - you only have to look at the live trading statement on their website (or read the manual… I’m sure that would be “a first” for many people!) to see that Volcano doesn’t use a TP or SL… if that approach doesn’t suit your trading style / personality then why in blazes would you be dumb enough to trade that strategy on your account?
…so, Dancyn, where’s the revelation in what you wrote? - non-existant! Yours are the kind of ultra-dumb “negative” statements that proliferate forums and turn people away from potentially / actually good EAs while similarly dumb “positive” comments draw the unwary to the many, many scabby EAs available (which explains why most people lose money in this game!)
Neo
I get really tired of people instantly jumping on the “its a scam” bandwagon as well. If you just want to freak out all the time, then maybe forex isn’t for you!
I’ve been using Fusion for a couple of weeks now on a live account and have had good results. up about 10%. I’m not here to get rich quick so not worried if its not giving me the same kind of results. As long as there is forward movement then I’m a happy-chappy.
I’ve been playing with it a bit and have learnt to only touch when I’m told to. The HiRIDER trades open at the moment would wipe out my profits if they closed where they are now but, if the last two weeks are anything to go by, I just need to keep the faith and all will be well.
I’ve just got to stop watching it all the time. You buy an ea and then you watch it even more intensely than if you were trading manual.
Neo, please feel free to contact me any time to discuss settings, other ea’s or anything. You are one of the first people who has posted anything that makes sense to me.
I don’t mean to offend anyone else but could we please stop freaking out and actually use this thread to post some useful comments about FRWC’s ea’s?
Happy trading!
[B]“actually use this thread to post some useful comments about FRWC’s ea’s? “[/B]
[B]Useful comment #1.[/B] I watched HiRider open BUY trades at substantial resistance and SELL trades at substantial support. As a matter of fact, I watched it open 10 BUY trades at substantial support and proceeded to watch as all 10 trades were stopped out @ 110 pips eachh (just one example).
[B]Useful comment #2.[/B] I watched SuperVolcano also open BUY trades at substantial resistance and SELL trades at substantial support. I watched as it had as many as 4 open trades in a 600 pip drawdown EACH.
[B]Useful comment #3.[/B] I watched LMD try to operate out of “luck” by randomly opening trades then closing them at the end of the day, sometimes closing a trade at a loss which had been in profit and opening like trades on pairs with opposite correlation. For example, opening BUY trades on EUR/USD and USD/CHF at the same time. Etc., etc.
[B]Useful comment #4.[/B] I did not expect the FRWC EA’s to make boatloads of money. However, after making that kind of investment in an EA, I WOULD expect to be able to use it with some peace of mind. Is there any way I could ever trust those EA’s on an account with any kind of “real” money. My answer: “there’s no way in hell”.
Would you tell your mother or grandmother to invest 10% of their life’s savings with these EA’s so they could be secure in their retirement? No? Then why trust your own money to them.
[B]Summary;[/B] To me, the only kind of “logic” the EA’s operate with is that of having huge S/L’s and tiny T/P’s. Maybe if I traded manually that way I could get good results. But even then I wouldn’t open a SELL at a strong support level with the price moving back up (or vice-versa).
[B]NEO[/B] “Yours are the kind of ultra-dumb “negative” statements that proliferate forums and turn people away from potentially / actually good EAs while similarly dumb “positive” comments draw the unwary to the many, many scabby EAs available (which explains why most people lose money in this game!) “ (quote by NEO)
So Neo, I suppose you have proof that the FRWC EA’s are not of the “scabby” variety. Maybe it is you that succumbed to the advertising campaign that proclaimed to alter the DNA in MQL code.
I suggest that Dancyn may only be inexperienced and was simply trying to get a refund (companies like FRWC are famous for preying on the inexperienced). I also suggest that FRWC’s reluctance to grant refunds does nothing for their public image (from my personal experience it was FRWC and not Plimus that was making things difficult). I have also bought and sold enough merchandise over the Internet to know that the payment processor will normally side with the customer whether the vendor likes it or not. So, for those of you who want a refund then… JUST GET IT !!
The bottom line: I chose to get a refund. I’m glad I did because I didn’t want to “diddle” around with potentially scabby EA’s for months on end.
If YOU want to get a refund that should be your prerogative without getting the run-around.
If you want to run the EA’s do so at your own risk knowing that soon, the 60 day trial period will be over. Good luck.
Agree with most of the last post. I was extremely glad that I had only demo-traded, as trading these EAs with the default settings, then swapping onto the FRWC recommended settings when advised, lost me more than 25% across the 5 robots I was trading (Fusion and then the top 4 of the others). These losses obviously make me view these robots as somewhat dangerous as had this loss been real, I’d be in some proper trouble now.
I persisted with the refund request - I luckily found an old account that I had traded Fusion with for a few days at the end of Feb, which then along with my March statement on my new account gave me the 30 days they wanted. My refund was then processed without issue - I did not need to use the word chargeback, go to FXCM or anything similar. I think if they had made it a little bit clearer that the money back guarantee required the 30 sequential trading days of statements a lot of the above complaints would not have arisen. Conversely of course, you could say that spending that much on something and not totally checking out and clearning up any ambiguity in the t’s and c’s, is irresponsible on the customers’ part.
My biggest takeaway from this, being relatively new to the trading game, is that trading with EAs is not for me - I like to have more control. I find the prospect of having something automated continually trade away my money just too scary - I appreciate that there will quite probably be upsides but the stress of the down is too much for me. I’m now definitely off to spend my time learning ‘the trade’ properly rather than spending my money on these ‘quick-fixes’ that don’t really seem to exist.
For anyone out there still wanting a refund, just try and pull all your statements together from every day you’ve traded no matter which robot or which account. If you’ve not got the full number of days, then get trading a on demo accounts with low risk settings on the EAs to gather your remaining days. Fusion obviously places the most trades given that it’s a combo of a few. In my experience, if you can show the 30 sequential days they will be reasonable. I genuinely don’t think they are a ‘scam’ outfit - they are just suffering from the changing market and trying to hang onto their customerbase while they sort things out - definitely a high risk but who knows maybe they will make Fusion the best ever in a future version and all those of us who bowed out might kick ourselves!!
For TradeRunner:
“Useful comment #1. I watched HiRider open BUY trades at substantial resistance and SELL trades at substantial support. As a matter of fact, I watched it open 10 BUY trades at substantial support and proceeded to watch as all 10 trades were stopped out @ 110 pips eachh (just one example).”
** Beyond the fact that the above comment makes no sense if you read it carefully, this is a good example of how some people find it impossible to accept that an EA - any EA - is going to be trading based on a set of rules defined by its developer (actually, 5 sets of rules with HiRider) and NOT based on what a user subjectively sees on a chart… after all, show 10 people the same chart and you’ll get 10 different comments about what’s going on, especially if the chart being looked at is a different timeframe to what the EA is using internally - remember that an EA might be sitting on a 1-hour chart but actually using 5-minute bars (or any other timeframe) internally for moving averages, stochastics, etc.
“Useful comment #2. I watched SuperVolcano also open BUY trades at substantial resistance and SELL trades at substantial support. I watched as it had as many as 4 open trades in a 600 pip drawdown EACH.”
** As above.
“Useful comment #3. I watched LMD try to operate out of “luck” by randomly opening trades then closing them at the end of the day, sometimes closing a trade at a loss which had been in profit and opening like trades on pairs with opposite correlation. For example, opening BUY trades on EUR/USD and USD/CHF at the same time. Etc., etc.”
** This is a particularly foolish statement to make as “luck” and “randomness” have no bearing on things! There’s a fairly lengthy explanation of the strategy development process in the manual - in particular, highlighting the fact that trades are based on profiled daily chart patterns and stating specifically that all open trades are closed out at the end of each day regardless of the profit/loss at that time. Further, the manual clearly states that LMD was originally developed for a single currency pair and that the EA was updated to trade the additional pairs especially for the FRWC competition so there never was any consideration of currency correlation.
“Useful comment #4. I did not expect the FRWC EA’s to make boatloads of money. However, after making that kind of investment in an EA, I WOULD expect to be able to use it with some peace of mind. Is there any way I could ever trust those EA’s on an account with any kind of “real” money. My answer: “there’s no way in hell”.
Would you tell your mother or grandmother to invest 10% of their life’s savings with these EA’s so they could be secure in their retirement? No? Then why trust your own money to them.”
** I half-agree with you here… I didn’t expect the EAs to necessarily mimick the results of the competition but I also realize that things can go either way, “for better or worse” so to speak - ultimately, the market does what the market wants and Sod’s Law defines that fact that what you least want/expect to happen will happen when you least want/expect it! We all saw 2 months of live trading (through what’s generally accepted to be the worst time of year to trade!) and all of us who purchased saw / ran our own back-tests which indicated and supported the accuracy / stability of the various strategies. Bottom line, if market conditions after launch had been more consistent with the previous months then this thread would be full of the same people harping on about how the FRWC EAs were God’s gift to trading BUT, this is “trading” and “that’s life” in this business.
“Summary; To me, the only kind of “logic” the EA’s operate with is that of having huge S/L’s and tiny T/P’s. Maybe if I traded manually that way I could get good results. But even then I wouldn’t open a SELL at a strong support level with the price moving back up (or vice-versa).”
** That’s certainly true of some of the EAs but then it’s down to the individual users to read the strategy explanations in the manuals and look at how those EAs actually trade by referring to the live accounts that the FRWC posted and from their back-test reports. I think it’s fairly clear that different EAs would be better suited to the personalities of different traders so each trader is responsible for picking the EA(s) that THEY feel comfortable with after considering the possible risks of those strategies. For example, should a trader with a $500 account trade HiRider with the default settings? Probably not - the first loss would wipe out $200 of equity. Should a trader with a $10,000 account run HiRider in default mode? Quite probably… especially if it was using the same lot sizing that FRWC used on the their $1,000 accounts.
This is especially true of EAs like Fusion - think about it for a second… Fusion is comprised of 5 EAs and each of them ran great / well / fairly well on a $1,000 micro account (0.01 minimum lot size) with 200:1 leverage. Would any of those EAs have performed the same on a $1,000 mini account (0.1 minimum lot size)? - Heck no! What about a $1,000 micro account (0.01 minimum lot size) with 100:1 leverage? - Unlikely!
With that in mind, why would anyone presume that running any of those component strategies on a $200 account ($1,000 / 5 strategies) would be safe unless market conditions happened to be optimal at the time? Sure, you could put $1,000 into a LiteForex nano account (0.001 minimum lot size) and trade with impunity but there’s no way I’d run Fusion on a $1,000 micro account (0.01 minimum lot size) with any of my money, not even with 500:1 leverage - the risk would be too high for my liking so I’d need to be running it on an account with at least 200:1 leverage and $5,000 available equity, probably $10,000, for safety.
My point: Success in this business comes from thinking, not bleating.
" “Yours are the kind of ultra-dumb “negative” statements that proliferate forums and turn people away from potentially / actually good EAs while similarly dumb “positive” comments draw the unwary to the many, many scabby EAs available (which explains why most people lose money in this game!) “ (quote by NEO)
So Neo, I suppose you have proof that the FRWC EA’s are not of the “scabby” variety. Maybe it is you that succumbed to the advertising campaign that proclaimed to alter the DNA in MQL code."
** The “proof” is the fact that many people are using the EAs quite happily and quite successfully. I’ve always maintained that the “real world” success of an EA lies less in the logic of that EA than in the logic of the person using it! - most people are trying to go for the “big kill” using under-funded accounts… that’s the only time when “luck” factors into the equation. If you look through the forums, you’ll find thread after thread proclaiming how Martengale strategies “will absolutely blow your account after a few months!” yet I know people who have been using those kinds of EAs for a VERY long time (years!) and come out ahead every single month. You only have to look at the Blessing EA that’s available free on TSD - lots of people have blown accounts with that yet the developer averages $10k per month with it.
"I suggest that Dancyn may only be inexperienced and was simply trying to get a refund (companies like FRWC are famous for preying on the inexperienced). I also suggest that FRWC’s reluctance to grant refunds does nothing for their public image (from my personal experience it was FRWC and not Plimus that was making things difficult). I have also bought and sold enough merchandise over the Internet to know that the payment processor will normally side with the customer whether the vendor likes it or not. So, for those of you who want a refund then… JUST GET IT !!
The bottom line: I chose to get a refund. I’m glad I did because I didn’t want to “diddle” around with potentially scabby EA’s for months on end.
If YOU want to get a refund that should be your prerogative without getting the run-around.
If you want to run the EA’s do so at your own risk knowing that soon, the 60 day trial period will be over. Good luck."
** Actual experience of people I know and from reading between the lines in forums shows that the only people “making things difficult” were the people trying to get refunds - I know lots of people on TSD who got refunds without a moment’s trouble, simply because they complied with the terms of the FRWC return policy. To try and cast doubt over the integrity of an organization based on the fact that their terms are not they way you feel they should be is not fair at all. The exact wording on their sales page is:
“If, after a minimum of 30 days of demo or live trading, you are not happy with the results (NO MATTER what they are), simply send us your account statement within 60 days of purchase and we will give you a FULL refund - no questions asked. We do not want your money if you are not happy with the product!”
Now, I agree that the wording of “30 days” is slightly ambiguous - they really should have stated either “calendar” or “trading” days. Regardless, if you send in 30 days of trading records and they start giving you the runaround then I would support anyone 100% if they then start shouting in forums BUT if you only sent in 29 days of records then the fault is entirely yours.
I haven’t yet come across a single person who sent in the information requested and had a hard time getting a refund which basically proves my point - forums are just full of idiots who are convinced that terms and conditions are for “other people”.
Neo
To barnesan:
Glad to see that I’m not the only “thinker” out there 
You’re absolutely doing the right thing - if automated trading doesn’t suit your personality then simply don’t do it, but the fact that you took the time to evaluate the EAs properly to confirm that auto-trading (with the FRWC EAs, at least) isn’t right for you is very much to your credit.
Who knows, you may have a change of stance in the future - I personally tried manual trading (stocks and futures before I “discovered” Forex) and proved to myself that I wasn’t disciplined enough to trade by “the rules”, which is why I moved over to automated trading.
The secret for me was to find (actually, I developed) an EA that trades in a way that I’m comfortable with and that I trust to do the bulk of the work while I “oversee” things.
Would I trust it to trade 100% automated? - Never!
Does it back-test well? - Nope… actually, it blows the account every time.
Does it work for me? - Absolutely!.. 500-600% per year on a $10,000 live account.
Neo
I’m not sure that I entirely agree. Luck and randomness actually have a MASSIVE impact on auto trading, and thats the fundemental weakness in this particular product / service.
The underlying problem with developing auto trading strategies is that its very difficult to seperate genuine performance from good (or bad) luck. For example, you can take a bunch a bunch of completely random systems, run them concurrently, and by random chance, some will return extremely acceptable equity curves. Other instances of the same EA will generate appallingly bad equity curves by again purely by chance. The aggregate performance of all EA’s of course will result in breakeven minus transaction costs.
System vendors commonly pull this type of stunt, i.e. set 20 instances running, and then retrospectively report the best results to potential purchasers.
The problem is that most EA’s in the public domain are nothing more than a bunch of random components, and of course, no serious system developer is ever going to submit a serious product in a competition for prize money of a few bucks.
So in effect, everyone participating in the competition, or watching the competition, or purchasing the EA’S is most likely being fooled by randomness. When these random systems are developed in forums, their true potential is soon evaluated, because for every successful user of the system, there tends to be an unsuccessful user. The problem with competions of this nature is that there’s only a single instance under test, and if that sigle instance happens to perform well by random chance, there’s a lack of alternative instances that would in reality average out the performance.
In reality, you’d probably be far better purchasing the EA’s that performed the worst in the competition as these at least have a chance of mean reverting
An inexperienced trader may not be aware of these facts, for example reading a forum such as TSD reveals just how ignorant most developers actually are of the probabilistic nature of automated strategy design. The business entity exploiting the competition may not be fully aware of facts, but one thing IS for sure, the broker sponsoring this competition DEFINATELY understands the score and they should actually be quite ashamed at the cynical exploitation of potential clients. Sure, brokers have to make a profit, but this type of behaviour definately crosses the line in terms of business ethics and moral responsibility.
I do however agree with your second point in that an experienced trader is more likely to be able to select an EA appropriate for market conditions, and of course understand when the conditions no longer suit the EA.
NEO “Beyond the fact that the above comment makes no sense if you read it carefully”
What’s not to understand? Surely the concept of support and resistance has not escaped an experienced trader such as yourself. When the D1, 4H, 1H and 15M charts all show a substantial support area it might not be a good time to sell that currency pair. You can thank me later for the brief explanation.
simbafx “The business entity exploiting the competition may not be fully aware of facts, but one thing IS for sure, the broker sponsoring this competition DEFINATELY understands the score and they should actually be quite ashamed at the cynical exploitation of potential clients. Sure, brokers have to make a profit, but this type of behaviour definately crosses the line in terms of business ethics and moral responsibility.”
I couldn’t agree more !!
TradeRunner… this is what didn’t make sense:
“I watched it open 10 BUY trades at substantial support and proceeded to watch as all 10 trades were stopped out @ 110 pips”
Exactly what else would you want it to do at substantial support?
Maybe you meant to say resistance but that’s why I commented - either way, if you looked at the HiRider explanation in the manual then you’d see that the strategies are based on standard indicators so S/R analysis isn’t considered… as long as the entry criteria are met then the trades will open.
The only thing I really didn’t like with HiRider is the fact that another order opens on each tick for as long as the entry criteria are still valid until the order limit of 10 positions is reached. I think it would have been better to spread out the trades more - perhaps limit things to one new position per 1-minute candle… that would at least give more opportunity for trades to open at different levels and maybe increase the likelihood of more closing out.
Neo
Neo… All apologies, I didn’t read what I wrote. The orders were sell orders.
My thoughts were the same regarding it opening so many trades so close
together. But if I were the broker, I’d love it !
More intereting is the performance of the EA’s that are profitable and not used in the Fusion EA.
My test of the Simple EA shows that it does not take any notice of the Money Management setting. Assuming Simple EA does use neural net training then would it not need retraing for the more recient markets trends. I strongly suspect that having been informed of MM problem for over a month the FXWC team are not interested in fixing the less sucessful EA’s in their profile.
The Nutcracker appears to trade on a weekly basis and therefore the FXWC live trading race will not tell us its overall performance.
Yet to play with the others but certainly a very disapointing and expensive exercise.
This a personal experience and may be different for other users of these EA’s.
I think you should try to use HiRider Advanced, it looks great now compare to older version and other robots.
I think you should try to use HiRider Advanced,
Now i compare the old original hirider and new Advanced version. Old one got a loss this week while new one is only marking profitable trades so far. The backtest seems much better as well. i will keep it updated with my results.
Now we can all agree that Fusion
is subpar to miserable and not worth
the money. And this is actually good.
It raises the odds of you getting a
refund especially if these Fusion morons
are unresponsive. And they are starting
to be unresponsive right? Constantly
harass Plimus for the refund and keep
telling them vendor is not responsive.
And now Plimus probably is getting a ton
of complaints against these guys. Again
a plus. And there is nothing good about
this EA or the guys peddling this EA.
End of discussion really. If you are tired
of people screaming scam, then go start
a separate thread for Fusion Enthusiasts.
Hey folks, it’s been a while since I’ve posted here. Since I got back from vacation, I’ve had nothing but trouble getting my FXCM demo accounts to work.
I don’t know what the problem is, but I’ve had to start over about 4 times. It’s not the 30 day limit on demo accounts that’s causing this problem. It just randomly seems to stop working. When I try to login, I get an “invalid account” message.
Anyway, I’m over it. I’m going to request a refund and move on.
FRWC’s support has been responsive, but they haven’t been able to solve the problem.
I’ve enjoyed our discussions here, and I wish you all the best. I’m going to return to my freelance small business consulting gig, and keep working on my online niche businesses. I think those will be more profitable and fun for me anyway.
Final thought:
“There is only one success –
To be able to spend your life in your own way.”
- Christopher Morley
Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion!
See ya,
{Zen}Glen
Hi guys!
I’m testing HiRider Advanced since Monday.And what can say…I really like this advanced bot.I had stable trades in profit.Not so great,but not losses;)
This one is really accurate.I sincerely hope that FRWC will release new version of Fusion with HiRider Advanced instead of old one 
and at the same time make updates for other 4 bots.
Will keep you posted with my results.
Cheers
What language do you set in options of platform?
Hello, I have been watching this thread with much interest. I am based in New Zealand, have bought the FRWC robots. I would like to know if you altered the settings to the new HR Advanced or used out of the box settings. Also keen to know if there are any Kiwi’s out there using the product.
Thank you,
Glen.
I had been trading Fusion since it was released, but after a month, & the demo account verging on a wipeout, ceased trading with it.
Has anyone had any experience of it since, or till date? How has it been performing?