I use default settings,last week I’ve enabled MM for the interest,but after this changing bot doesn’t trade.
I had such experience just after purchasing and complete installing (due to the virus troubles I was unable to run the robot).Fusion wiped out my $1000 account in 2 weeks:mad:.As support staff suggested me to disable martingale Straaasha,disable MM and set safer lot size.But even after these changes my profit no so great as I expected.So,I hope that FRWC will release new version of Fusion with HiRider Advanced (which I really like) and make some updates before my money back guarantee will be expired.
see lots of people arguing here.
bottom line is guys, frwc was a sham, simple as that.
StanGQ are you using the FRWC robots at all at the moment? Have you had any positive experience with any of them?
marcus, although I won’t jump to that conclusion, but I will say this - for all the hype, the robots have so far failed to achieve anything. I wonder how many people requested a refund.
I used all bots (as I payed for 10 winning bots+Fusion bonus:D)Among non winning robots I defined Neg-Correlation as worthy bot.Among winning bots I really like HiRider for its scalping strategy ,which I liked after using Mega Droid (offtopic).But I was not completely satisfied with its operation,because of the first dangerous strategy.After releasing HiRider I am satisfied with its performance and making stable (but not great) profit.Fusion is not so bad at all.I think that for its perfect operating FRWC need make constant tweaks,improvements and updatings.Anyway,I prefer HiRider Advanced;) Let my results will be no so great with it but I’ll have no so great losses.
Fusion was the worst performer in my forward test. But if it has been working for you, maybe it’s time for another test… Has anyone else had any experience of Fusion recently?
And how about other bots,not only Fusion?
The experience with Fusion meant none of the others were implemented, mainly as Fusion uses a combination of about 4/5 of the top performers.
What about advanced bot,would you try to use this one or you only interested in Fusion with 300% :)?
yeah, but come on, if it’s not a sham, then it’s an absolute disaster.
FRWC open doors again on 24 hours :eek:
Well, after the experience I’ve had with them, I’d think twice before I ever do business with them again. It is, as marcus says, a complete disaster if indeed the possibility of a sham is discounted.
I know that some people here have taken a hit with the FRWC EAs but that’s really nothing more than sheer bad luck - we all watched those bots trading live accounts for 8 weeks but Sod’s Law took effect right after they were released and we’ve been experiencing some fairly silly price action ever since.
My point here is that the losses were just bad luck - plain and simple so to keep shouting “scam” is totally ridiculous - the FRWC guys don’t control the market but rather than vanish (like most EA vendors would), they’ve spent time adapting the main EAs to improve stability and I understand that they have a few new EAs on live-test right now that are going to show up in the EA Lab soon (it’s amazing what you can learn by asking the support guys!)
For anyone wondering, this isn’t just my view - here are some posts from DonnaForex’s forum:
peterc005: "FRWC is now profitable for me.
HiRider Advanced is way ahead
Straasha makes small but reliable profits
Super Volcano has been steadily recovering and is close to profitable. Sometimes it does get good trades that turn things around quickly.
LMD Multicurrency is recovering and is the black horse that may yet make the whole Fusion thing sing.
I bought FRWC/Fusiion the day it was released. After good initial returns it bombed big time after a couple of weeks. Since then it has recovered and is now cash-flow positive, this week generating returns of about 25% on a live forex.com account."
JakobNorn: “I am getting similar results. in my last post yesterday i forgot to mention neg correlation bot. seems everyone forgot about this beast but it is still one of the most profitable FRWC robots for me. It does not make huge profits, but constant small trades few times a week.”
Bottom line - I’d like to see more constructive posts that can actually help users get returns from these EAs rather than these uninformed “scam” calls which don’t help anyone. That seems to be the direction on Donna’s forum so why not here?
Just my two-cents…
Neo
Neo, if you would have gone through the whole thread, you would have seen that although it does reflect the dismal performance that most of the FRWC users have faced - which is not surprising given the extended period of extremely poor performance - one of the main queries was to determine the current status.
As for your comment about ‘uninformed “scam” calls’ please do elaborate what you define as uninformed. If trading them for more than a month is uninformed, then I await - with extreme eagerness - to determine what your defination of informed is.
The bottom line is, the EAs were not exactly cheap so that they can be written off. None of us here purchased them in order to not trade with them, but because of the high calibar that was promised. The poor performance certainly cannot be written off as sheer luck - any trader worth their salt should know better than to keep making the same mistakes again & again. If they are indeed performing well, all of us would very much like to hear of it. But please do refrain from making comments which can be contrued as offensive.
So if losses are caused by BAD LUCK, what evidence have you that the previous gains where not caused by GOOD LUCK ?
Either the vendors of these EA’s are completely ignorant, or they are criminally negligent, or its deliberate deception. I’d go for all 3 !
Neo,what can you say about your own results with FRWC?Could you share your impressions with us?
hahaha! simba you hit the nail on the head!
For spaceage9:
What I’m saying is this…
If you see EAs trading on live, real-money accounts (which we KNOW was the case because we have investor passwords) and they’re making good progress then you cannot dispute that those EAs are trading a viable strategy so shouting “scam” because the strategy hits a period of drawdown at what can only be described as an inopportune moment is nothing more than moronic.
I’ve been trading live accounts since about 1997 (futures & stocks before Forex) and I have never encountered a single strategy that didn’t suffer the same fate as the FRWC EAs. This is not just confined to EAs - look at Winning System Solutions… the guy behind that community developed his manual strategy and traded $1,000 into over $750,000 within 2 years but when I started following the system (about 2 years ago), it hit an extended losing streak which decimated the accounts of many members before picking up again. Applying the logic of this thread, the WSS system is also a “scam” simply because it hit a losing streak.
The same logic has been used here regarding their refund policy… the sales page did clearly state that anyone could request a refund within 60 days on condition that they provided 30 days of trading records.
I’ve read so many posts from half-wits who are screaming “scam” for no other reason than they have been told they didn’t qualify for a refund at that point in time. Why? - because they either requested the refund before 30 days had even elapsed or they didn’t send the requested trading records.
Does that make the FRWC people “scammers”? No - it highlights the fact that the people shouting “scam” are simply idiots who don’t deserve the right to purchase products online in the first place!
For simbafx:
No-one is saying that the previous results were not simply the result of good luck, however, since the offending strategies were back-tested for about a year prior to commencing the live-trading phase AND the same strategy parameters were used for both stages, I’d have to conclude that 6-8 weeks of “bad luck” is significantly more likely than 60 weeks of “good luck”.
As to your closing comment:
“Either the vendors of these EA’s are completely ignorant, or they are criminally negligent, or its deliberate deception”
“completely ignorant” - Ignorant of what?
“criminally negligent” - In what way? From what I’ve seen, they’ve stepped up to the plate and adapted the EAs to improve stability so I see no indication of negligence, criminal or not!
“deliberate deception” - They provided historical proof via back-tests, current proof via the live-trading phase and, though the inevitable hype was present, they did not state one thing on their sales page that I have managed to identify which was not 100% backed up by publicly verifiable proof. If anyone wants to double-check (I’m not saying that I’m infallable) then the page they refer refund requesters to is parked at their domain “/indexx.php”
If you’re going to make sweeping statements then you really have to back them up with a solid argument otherwise you can wave goodbye to any credibility you might have had.
Looks like the ball is back in your court…
Neo
Its perhaps rather unfair of me to comment on the specifics, as I have not purchased or used this particular EA, nor do I know anone who has.
However, what I would say, from personal experience as a system developer, is that the role of random chance plays a far larger part than we are perhaps prepared to acknowledge.
In the case of these particular EA’s I’d also suggest that a year of backtesting might possibly be an insufficient sample size, and given the availability of historical data, there’s no particularly good reason not to test over a longer term.
I’ve personally witnessed mechanical day trading systems that have performed well for periods of perhaps 3-4 years, over a sample size in excess of 2000 trades just completely fall apart. Although these systems may have looked to be performing well over relatively long periods and large sample sizes, in reality, these system’s did not have a positive expectancy over a longer time horizon. Its quite common, I’ve developed hundreds of strategies that initially look great, but subject them to reasonable analysis, and they fall apart.
I trade with a high degree of diversification, and I quite often see substantial differences in performance from month to month and year to year, and although a major aspect of my job is to attempt to determine why this might be the case, I often conclude that these differences are often just due to luck.
The issue is that you cannot really differentiate between the role of good and bad luck over such a small sample size. Unfortunately, the effects of random chance is something that traders need to deal with (and even possibly exploit to their advantage). The worrying aspect of course is that a run of bad luck could have such a significant impact on results.
I have been quite critical of the vendor behind this idea for a number of reasons. I’ve touched on this point before, but a trading competition isnt perhaps the best vehicle by which to evaluate an automated trading strategy. By their very nature, competitions tend to encourage participants to submit overly aggressive strategies. A realistic well designed system producing realistic returns isnt going to stand any kind of a chance in the short term against an over optimised strategy that happens to get lucky.
Anyone with a decent system is going to be protective of their intellectual property, and of course, theyre hardly likely to risk disclosure of a method given that they have little realistic chance of beating an agressive EA who just happened to get lucky.
I was looking at the myfxbook site earlier today who are currently promoting a possible future competion, and to paraphrase, the sales pitch is enter our competition [I]“trade a demo account risk free, for real cash prizes, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain”. [/I] That kind of sums up most of the industry really, a bunch of people playing a game for fun, no different to any other game of chance. If you really serious about providing a customer with a well designed product, should you really solicit for potential products through a competion ?
Lets assume that the vendors of these products are actually completely ignorant of the issues involved in system design, and that they just had a badly thought through idea that the past performance of a system was an indication of future potential, kind of like betting on the leading horse half way through a race. I’d ask the obvious question why not subject participants to more stringent backtesting. Why not insist on a 10 year backtest, why not insist on montecarlo simulation etc ?
The whole basis of picking a winner by allowing a bunch of people to go head to head in a competition, where risk is ultimately rewarded rather than sound strategy design really doesnt sit right with me, but I could at a push, believe that these ommissions and decisions where taken out of ignorance.
As for negligence, lets assume that I decide that I’m going go into business building boats, hey, rich people buy boats right ? they cant be that difficult to build can they ?. I build and sell a few boats, then one sinks, drowning the crew. I’d certainly categorise my behaviour as negligence. Its not really a suitable excuse that I thought I knew what I was doing, or that I’d built a boat, and sailed it around for a few months in calm sea’s without any issues.
The same goes for the vendor of these EA’s, they released a product without appropriate testing, and as a consequece, punters possibly suffered financial losses.
Of course, losses and drawdowns are to be expected, and one might expect that a responsible vendor would stipulate a reasonable estimation of the levels that a potential purchaser could realistically experience , and to specify the point at which they considered that these systems where no longer operating within the parameters in which they where designed to operate. However, the marketing by this particular company appears to be promoting the potential rates of return, based on extremely dubious short term testing rather than focussing on risk.
I fully understand the need to show a product in its best light, and the constraints under which they need to operate to realistically make sales, but I would suggest that to allow their customers to endure such high levels of drawdown that presumably exceed levels experienced in previous testing is actually negligence.
Unfortunately, you have to consider the possibility of deliberate deception, I personally know several individuals who run a whole series of forex related businesses that are built entirely on deception. They do so because its easy, and its reletively lucrative. I’m not suggesting this is the case, but I’m stating that it happens, and it shouldnt be discounted.
An associate of mine sells an EA, and he provides backtests. Initially he engineered the backtest to run over a time period conducive to the EA’s performance, ignoring the 20 or so years worth of data that didnt really give the result he required. Is that deception ?, he argues that markets have changed, the EA works in current conditions. Its a fine line. Now of course he (and countless others) have modified EA’s to exclude specific periods of time so if a customer attempts a backtest, the EA skips periods in which it does less well, I’d argue thats deliberate deception. I’m not implying that its been done in this case as there appears to be a complete absense of backtesting, but the point is just becuse someone provides a backtest does not necessarily mean that everything is above board.
As for refunds, it seams perfectly acceptable to me that with a digital product that the vendor should place some sort of constraints on the circumstances in which a refund can be requested. 30 days isnt a particularly stringent requirement to impose on purchasers. The problem that I would forsee is that the strategy employed by their sales and marketing team possibly sets unrealistic expectations on potential purchasers, and that in turn could lead to an increase in the number of people requesting refunds, and potentially resorting to chargeback requests if refunds are not handled efficiently, and that is a genuine risk that the vendor will need to manage.