I agree with your statement as it stands, but, as ever, issue is with 'seems' and 'according to backtest'!

My concern is that the entry conditions have been curve-fitted to deal with the losses HiRider Original made (and I'm not suggesting this is malicious or has been done deliberately to mislead) which are easily checkable in backtest; but that the overall performance will remain the same once either version of HiRider hits conditions which it hasn't encountered before. Obviously what I'm hoping is that the losses made by HiRider Original were a consequence of frequent market scenarios which the new version will encounter frequently and now avoid; and also that this isn't 1 of 100 unprepared-for hurdles which could trip up HiRider's logic (as I'll be bored, dead or broke - or all 3 - by the time they get to HiRider 100).

I note that the original HiRider (which is trading within Fusion which I've also got on myfxbook in my FRWC demo portfolio - you can analyse by magic number to get results which isolate HiRider trades) took the exact same trades as HiRider Advanced on March 23, with the same degree of success.

I've held off from my refund request based on HiRider and HiRider Advance performance to date. Just curious as I just went live with Advanced this Tuesday, anyone else seeing a drought of trades these past few days? markob100's history would match my observations as well. Just making sure its not an issue with my VPS or broker feed.

Cheers!

@Kelrine: agreed. The only one I like the look of is hirider and that goes in for some borderline insane position sizing (10x identical trades?!). So we'll see. Another couple of weeks to test.

HA on Demo trading Negative against deposit for about a week now, I'm not so sure they have HA figured out yet, have had PM of small profit on live account but I'm not seeing it in my demo results.

Best results I have is using Fusion with all others turned off (I just set up a fresh demo of this and attached it to my profile so folks can follow it's progress)

I hate to encourage people to seek refunds, but unless you have faith in FRWC to get their act together eventually and can forgo the $1000 you have to seriously consider this option folks.

To sum up my thoughts / views - FRWC is an experimental work in slow progress, not a money printing machine. If you can live with that, kool, otherwise, go get your refund process started and remember this experience as part of the decision making process for your next adventure in EA's - good luck to all ;-)

kelrine posted:
    The $1000 can be use for testing out other EAs (with real $ back guarantee) than letting it burn.

yes yes... unless have source code to check the logic and add more coding to improve the weakness or else will encountered erractic performance. IMHO