Advertisement
FRWC - Fusion V - Alpari (Por stevetrade)
O usuário eliminou este sistema.
Discussão FRWC - Fusion V - Alpari
Membro Desde Sep 04, 2009
849 postagens
Mar 03, 2010 at 22:21
stevetrade posted:
The stipulation is quite clear and I queried it with support, you have to have thirty days of demo or live trading before you can apply for the refund within the 60 day limit. However this raises an interesting question. I'm not 100% sure how things work with Plimus, if it has an unconditional 30 day money back guarantee with Plimus then we're in danger of exceeding the 30 days on that by waiting to have 30 days of trade history.
guess what their intention is..... these guys seem to be very experienced scammers
Membro Desde Feb 25, 2010
95 postagens
Mar 03, 2010 at 22:29
(editado há Mar 03, 2010 at 22:31)
I finally figured out why on some of my accounts, Super Volcano would not trade. If your starting equity is $1,000 and your leverage is 1:100, and you set LotsRiskReductor to 1.5 or less, the very first position will be calculated as 0.0099, which is less than the minimum 0.01 lots required to open a trade.
As a refresher for some not in the know,
LRR = 1.5% of available margin,
Amount to use to trade = USD 1,500
Equivalent GBP = GBP 993.52 (1.50979 fxrate)
1st position lotsize = 993.52/100000 = 0.0099 lots (<0.01 lots, therefore, does not open)
Might be a reason why they require to use FXCM UK's 1:200 account.
On a similar note, and the main point I wanted to make, if LRR is set as a 'low' 1.5, and HiRider defaults of 10 positions and SL of 210 pips, with one 'event' of 10 positions opening, you risk 21.5% of your equity. (if using rounded down lots because your equity is too small to begin with, i.e. $1k , it works out to be 14.7%)
So on the one hand, LRR at 1.5 makes you risk mroe than 20% of your equity PER HiRider 10 position trade event, on the other hand, Super Volcano cannot trade.
To allow Super Volcano to trade at least 4 positions, set your LRR at 1.6. Just bear in mind that this will make your HiRider 10 position trade events risk 22.8% of your equity. (or 21.0% for rounded down lots)
Of course, as per my previous posts, if you do not set a SL for Super Volcano, you risk 100% of your equity. (as was seen by FRWC's own livetest blowing of a chunk of their equity with 3 Super Volcano positions of, what -615 pips each)
As a refresher for some not in the know,
LRR = 1.5% of available margin,
Amount to use to trade = USD 1,500
Equivalent GBP = GBP 993.52 (1.50979 fxrate)
1st position lotsize = 993.52/100000 = 0.0099 lots (<0.01 lots, therefore, does not open)
Might be a reason why they require to use FXCM UK's 1:200 account.
On a similar note, and the main point I wanted to make, if LRR is set as a 'low' 1.5, and HiRider defaults of 10 positions and SL of 210 pips, with one 'event' of 10 positions opening, you risk 21.5% of your equity. (if using rounded down lots because your equity is too small to begin with, i.e. $1k , it works out to be 14.7%)
So on the one hand, LRR at 1.5 makes you risk mroe than 20% of your equity PER HiRider 10 position trade event, on the other hand, Super Volcano cannot trade.
To allow Super Volcano to trade at least 4 positions, set your LRR at 1.6. Just bear in mind that this will make your HiRider 10 position trade events risk 22.8% of your equity. (or 21.0% for rounded down lots)
Of course, as per my previous posts, if you do not set a SL for Super Volcano, you risk 100% of your equity. (as was seen by FRWC's own livetest blowing of a chunk of their equity with 3 Super Volcano positions of, what -615 pips each)
Membro Desde Feb 25, 2010
95 postagens
Mar 03, 2010 at 22:43
(editado há Mar 03, 2010 at 22:50)
pc8multifx posted:
stevetrade posted:
The stipulation is quite clear and I queried it with support, you have to have thirty days of demo or live trading before you can apply for the refund within the 60 day limit. However this raises an interesting question. I'm not 100% sure how things work with Plimus, if it has an unconditional 30 day money back guarantee with Plimus then we're in danger of exceeding the 30 days on that by waiting to have 30 days of trade history.
guess what their intention is..... these guys seem to be very experienced scammers
I think they really believe they have winning EA's and are striving to deliver some kind of genuine product. Just that they've had a rough starting week.
However, I do feel that their literature is grossly inadequate. And that it takes us, their customers, to figure out how to use their product in an effective way. Their pdf's are too rudimentary and lack proper notification of the full risks involved. Possibly even to the point of breaching some regulation.
Well, these last 2 weeks are a real trial by fire, and I hope they persevere and manage to deliver what they strive to do. And if not, honour their refund policy.
Membro Desde Mar 03, 2010
26 postagens
Mar 03, 2010 at 23:49
Most of my trading history is about rough starting weeks, followed by never catching up. It's a poor excuse. Remember, this was supposed to be something competely different, to change the industry. A bad week like this leasves the door open for a worse week or more sustained stretches. I've experienced many account wipeouts, before turnarounds occured. There are no re-set do-overs with real money.
Membro Desde Feb 25, 2010
95 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 02:24
(editado há Mar 04, 2010 at 02:30)
Yes, I quite agree, we shouldn't be working this hard to get a product to function. An expensive product no less. Had I started out using this EA, I would have given up on EA's completely.
I'm the kind to persevere but I'm beginning to lose a little patience. $999 is a little offputting for the kind of performance received. They can make it a little better by upping the service but so far, it's a little lackluster. For one, I still don't know why the dll's with these EA's are signalled as viruses when other commercial EA's can get by. It's frustrating when my VPS's Win 2k3 server OS keeps auto-deleting the them.
On another note, I've just analysed FRWC's livetest (the one currently down 50%) and quite few others, and I can't see how LMD is a good EA like some of you observe. How do you guys come to that conclusion?
I'm the kind to persevere but I'm beginning to lose a little patience. $999 is a little offputting for the kind of performance received. They can make it a little better by upping the service but so far, it's a little lackluster. For one, I still don't know why the dll's with these EA's are signalled as viruses when other commercial EA's can get by. It's frustrating when my VPS's Win 2k3 server OS keeps auto-deleting the them.
On another note, I've just analysed FRWC's livetest (the one currently down 50%) and quite few others, and I can't see how LMD is a good EA like some of you observe. How do you guys come to that conclusion?
Membro Desde Feb 24, 2010
58 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 04:12
I believe FRWC is sincere in delivering a great EA as my demo account was in the positive until the last trading day of February when the 'Martingale Grid' blew it up with 10 trades (each with increasing lot sizes) against the trend.
Quickly I switched over to FRWC live account, they manually closed up all those trades plus the opened Super Volcano positions for a total loss of US770. Else they were actually up 33% mainly contributed by LMD and Hirider.
Quickly I switched over to FRWC live account, they manually closed up all those trades plus the opened Super Volcano positions for a total loss of US770. Else they were actually up 33% mainly contributed by LMD and Hirider.
Membro Desde Mar 03, 2010
26 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 05:05
kelrine posted:
I believe FRWC is sincere in delivering a great EA as my demo account was in the positive until the last trading day of February when the 'Martingale Grid' blew it up with 10 trades (each with increasing lot sizes) against the trend.
Quickly I switched over to FRWC live account, they manually closed up all those trades plus the opened Super Volcano positions for a total loss of US770. Else they were actually up 33% mainly contributed by LMD and Hirider.
That is the thinking that FRWC railed agaiinst. Selective optiimization which puts these other marketers in the best light. The fact is it is all a part of their program. You have to live the results as they exist. The next time it might be LMD or Hi Rider or Volcano or something else which cause the collapse. It's all a part of the program. Period.
Membro Desde Feb 25, 2010
95 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 05:39
(editado há Mar 04, 2010 at 05:48)
I just checked the latest HiRider manual and they have updated it with some explanation of LotRiskReductor and the risk exposure.
"WARNING: LotRiskReductor = 5 does *not* mean that your maximum potential loss will be 5% of your account - it means that 5% of your available margin will be used to open a trade. Depending on which currency pair you are trading, you could lose more or less than 5% of your account. Also, be aware that if you specify a risk percentage which results in a lot size which is too small to trade then the EA will use the minimum lot size allowed by your broker e.g. the EA is using money management and calculates that the lot size should be 0.007. Most brokers will not accept a lot size that small so the trade placed would be rounded up to the minimum allowed for a micro lot account which would be 0.01 lots."
Kudos on the effort but rather sadly, there are 2 glaring mistakes here.
1)
"LotRiskReductor = 5 does *not* mean that your maximum potential loss will be 5% of your account - it means that 5% of your available margin will be used to open a trade. Depending on which currency pair you are trading, you could lose more or less than 5% of your account."
Technically correct, but grossly misleading. You could lose 100% of your account with a trade with no SL. I don't understand how they can overlook their own livetest of the 3 GBPJPY Super Volcano trades losing 60% of their balance. I must point out that their livetest used a lotsize of 0.02 for those trades, if they had used LRR=5, those trades would have opened at 0.07, 0.06, 0.06 lots. Making their loss at -615 pips per trade a whopping total of 128% of their balance. Clearly not "more or less 5%".
2)
"Also, be aware that if you specify a risk percentage which results in a lot size which is too small to trade then the EA will use the minimum lot size allowed by your broker e.g. the EA is using money management and calculates that the lot size should be 0.007. Most brokers will not accept a lot size that small so the trade placed would be rounded up to the minimum allowed for a micro lot account which would be 0.01 lots."
Rational deduction would tell you that the lotsizes are rounded down and not up. If the LRR parameter tells the system not to EXCEED the % of margin used, how does rounding UP allow it to keep WITHIN the limit?
Were I to set my LRR at 0.6 on a broker that has 1:200 leverage, my 1st position would be 0.0088 lots. Does it force the trade by rounding up my position to 0.1 lots? No. It just does not open the position.
This is also evidenced in my earlier post on Super Volcano a/c not opening when LRR is set too low.
Another thing is they fail to mention the effect of leverage on LRR's sizing of lots.
I believe the FRWC guys are university students and that this is their final year project, or a very young start-up firm. They really need some form of legal counsel as soon as possible. Plus a person with some basic finance background.
"WARNING: LotRiskReductor = 5 does *not* mean that your maximum potential loss will be 5% of your account - it means that 5% of your available margin will be used to open a trade. Depending on which currency pair you are trading, you could lose more or less than 5% of your account. Also, be aware that if you specify a risk percentage which results in a lot size which is too small to trade then the EA will use the minimum lot size allowed by your broker e.g. the EA is using money management and calculates that the lot size should be 0.007. Most brokers will not accept a lot size that small so the trade placed would be rounded up to the minimum allowed for a micro lot account which would be 0.01 lots."
Kudos on the effort but rather sadly, there are 2 glaring mistakes here.
1)
"LotRiskReductor = 5 does *not* mean that your maximum potential loss will be 5% of your account - it means that 5% of your available margin will be used to open a trade. Depending on which currency pair you are trading, you could lose more or less than 5% of your account."
Technically correct, but grossly misleading. You could lose 100% of your account with a trade with no SL. I don't understand how they can overlook their own livetest of the 3 GBPJPY Super Volcano trades losing 60% of their balance. I must point out that their livetest used a lotsize of 0.02 for those trades, if they had used LRR=5, those trades would have opened at 0.07, 0.06, 0.06 lots. Making their loss at -615 pips per trade a whopping total of 128% of their balance. Clearly not "more or less 5%".
2)
"Also, be aware that if you specify a risk percentage which results in a lot size which is too small to trade then the EA will use the minimum lot size allowed by your broker e.g. the EA is using money management and calculates that the lot size should be 0.007. Most brokers will not accept a lot size that small so the trade placed would be rounded up to the minimum allowed for a micro lot account which would be 0.01 lots."
Rational deduction would tell you that the lotsizes are rounded down and not up. If the LRR parameter tells the system not to EXCEED the % of margin used, how does rounding UP allow it to keep WITHIN the limit?
Were I to set my LRR at 0.6 on a broker that has 1:200 leverage, my 1st position would be 0.0088 lots. Does it force the trade by rounding up my position to 0.1 lots? No. It just does not open the position.
This is also evidenced in my earlier post on Super Volcano a/c not opening when LRR is set too low.
Another thing is they fail to mention the effect of leverage on LRR's sizing of lots.
I believe the FRWC guys are university students and that this is their final year project, or a very young start-up firm. They really need some form of legal counsel as soon as possible. Plus a person with some basic finance background.
Membro Desde Oct 28, 2009
1409 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 08:53
I filed a refund request with Plimus yesterday to see what would happen. The FRWC team denied it stating the terms of the agreement, i.e.
You have to demo or live trade one of the robots for 30 days and provide them with trading statements before they will refund. So take note, if you aren't running an account you need to get one started in order to get a refund ( should you wish one )
You have to demo or live trade one of the robots for 30 days and provide them with trading statements before they will refund. So take note, if you aren't running an account you need to get one started in order to get a refund ( should you wish one )
11:15, restate my assumptions: 1. Mathematics is the language of nature. 2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers. 3. If you graph these numbers, patterns emerge. Therefore: There are patterns everywhere in nature.
Membro Desde Mar 04, 2010
50 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 10:53
I don't believe FRWC is sincere about anything. Although they are
making an attempt to appear sincere. Steve brought up a very
troubling potential problem with refunds but thankfully or still not
sure really about Plimus... but this is Plimus policy on refunds.
What is the refund policy?
Before purchasing an item you should always review the vendor's website
pertaining to their policy regarding a refund.
Since Plimus is a third party payment processor you must contact the vendor
directly about their refund policy. Most vendors list their refund policy under their FAQ's.
-- So, it is upto the vendor to have its own refund policy and to honor
it. If the vendor processes the refund, Plimus will just let it go through.
Plimus itself do not have a separate refund policy. It would have sucked
if Plimus had a 30 day policy while FRWC was doing something else.
And that would have been a scam. But we'll see what they do in 30 days.
I feel refund rate would exceed 90% clearly. And do note, I feel they will
ask for full 30 calendar trading days, not generic 4 week period. So make
sure you have traded full 30 trading days as well.
making an attempt to appear sincere. Steve brought up a very
troubling potential problem with refunds but thankfully or still not
sure really about Plimus... but this is Plimus policy on refunds.
What is the refund policy?
Before purchasing an item you should always review the vendor's website
pertaining to their policy regarding a refund.
Since Plimus is a third party payment processor you must contact the vendor
directly about their refund policy. Most vendors list their refund policy under their FAQ's.
-- So, it is upto the vendor to have its own refund policy and to honor
it. If the vendor processes the refund, Plimus will just let it go through.
Plimus itself do not have a separate refund policy. It would have sucked
if Plimus had a 30 day policy while FRWC was doing something else.
And that would have been a scam. But we'll see what they do in 30 days.
I feel refund rate would exceed 90% clearly. And do note, I feel they will
ask for full 30 calendar trading days, not generic 4 week period. So make
sure you have traded full 30 trading days as well.
Dukascopy rules !!!
Membro Desde Feb 25, 2010
95 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 12:46
Started looking at Straasha, quite an interesting EA. However, I don't fully understand why the RSI for buy and sell are not mirrored.
RSI_Buy1 = 31
RSI_Buy2 = 34
RSI_Sell1 = 70
RSI_Sell1 = 64
If mirrored (not including 0 on the scale), they would be either
RSI_Buy1 = 31
RSI_Buy2 = 34
RSI_Sell1 = 70
RSI_Sell1 = *67*
.....or
RSI_Buy1 = 31
RSI_Buy2 = *37*
RSI_Sell1 = 70
RSI_Sell1 = 64
Perhaps it is due to observed behaviour of the EURGBP pair?
Main point, to give it it's due, I was initially turned off the the ridiculously large lot sizes used in the Martingale component (WHY does FRWC keep spelling it as Martengale?), but in theory it's a workable system. However, you'll need a large account($100k), more than 1:200 leverage and a small LotRiskReductor (or small fixed lot) to fully maximise the Martingale component. Else most of the 10 positions opened via order will simply not open.
To make it effective for smaller accounts, you'll need to change the multiplying factor for multiple trades of the martingale component. This will obviously effect performance of the recovery.
One thing to note from comparing a/c's, I have no clear idea of how the martingale takes its small pips profit. It seems a little random. Either that or slippage really effects it.
RSI_Buy1 = 31
RSI_Buy2 = 34
RSI_Sell1 = 70
RSI_Sell1 = 64
If mirrored (not including 0 on the scale), they would be either
RSI_Buy1 = 31
RSI_Buy2 = 34
RSI_Sell1 = 70
RSI_Sell1 = *67*
.....or
RSI_Buy1 = 31
RSI_Buy2 = *37*
RSI_Sell1 = 70
RSI_Sell1 = 64
Perhaps it is due to observed behaviour of the EURGBP pair?
Main point, to give it it's due, I was initially turned off the the ridiculously large lot sizes used in the Martingale component (WHY does FRWC keep spelling it as Martengale?), but in theory it's a workable system. However, you'll need a large account($100k), more than 1:200 leverage and a small LotRiskReductor (or small fixed lot) to fully maximise the Martingale component. Else most of the 10 positions opened via order will simply not open.
To make it effective for smaller accounts, you'll need to change the multiplying factor for multiple trades of the martingale component. This will obviously effect performance of the recovery.
One thing to note from comparing a/c's, I have no clear idea of how the martingale takes its small pips profit. It seems a little random. Either that or slippage really effects it.
Membro Desde Mar 04, 2010
50 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 13:24
(editado há Mar 04, 2010 at 13:35)
zornjaso posted:
Phil, LMD and HiRIDER ane not a load of baloney. They are both profitable if you set them up carefully. And potnentially, Neg-Correlation, Zoop, COBALT-FX, and SIMPLE all have the potential to be profitable and low-risk robots in the FRWC stable. Other than the ones I mentioned (lol, you know who you are Straasha, VREM2, SuperVolcano...) the others are FAR too risky for an account with anything less than $10,000. Its a shame they didnt make this more clear, although I am not even sure they know for certain the reality of this.
I am probably getting a refund soon guys. At this point the only robot I am happy with, even with the several close calls, is HiRIDER. I'd pay $97 for HiRIDER and another $97 for LMD. Thats it. And sadly thats a combination not on offer. I already submitted my refund request and will continue to test some of the robots until they issue me my refund on 3/16 or 3/18.
Just because it wasn't right for me doesnt mean it isnt right for you. If your risk appetite is a bit hungrier and your capitalization is a bit higher (10k+) then this could be a great product, all modules considered. As of now, however -- for me personally -- I can't justify using 2-3 of the 11 total modules for the price of the package. HiRIDER may be a very good robot, but it isn't $1,200 good for someone on my budget. :(
I do believe now that LMD is utter baloney. HiRider also would have made more
money than LMD and would have won that "competition". HiRider was trading
very conservatively as opposed to LMD on money management. If HiRider was
doing a modest fixed lot of even just .1, it would have soundly beat the LMD
EA. HiRider may work as a scalper on a Dukascopy platform on a very tight
and very tight TP but otherwise, I do not see it working. It calls itself a scalper
yet the default setting of 210 SL and 12 TP is puzzling to say the least. RE: LMD, While
the risk/reward is reasonable, I don't trust the initial logic for opening a trade
in the first place. All EAs have "potential", if you have the time and the proclivity
to optimize it daily to no end. But who has the time or the patience? I don't.
LMD should not have won the competition. Other competitors were just too
conservative as opposed to LMD programmer that's all. Look at the results
of LMD and HiRider again. HiRider would have easily beat the crap out of LMD.
Even Volcano would have beat LMD. That's how underperforming LMD really is.
I am not happy with any of the EAs. Any standard scalping EA would beat
HiRider as well if being traded on a decent ECN model. This Fusion is greatly
overpriced and them using Plimus is really puzzling as well. Overall, just very
questionable. I just hope they will honor all of our refund request. Otherwise,
not only are they trashing themselves... but also FXCM and BT. I will raise
hell if they do not honor their refund request and give more weird stipulations
not mentioned on their sales page. Like they may say, it had to be straight
and continuous 30 full trading days on one account and that you had to use
default settings, etc. We know they could come up with a ton of BS to not
give out refunds. So they had better give out no questions asked refunds as
stated on their sales page.
PS - A bad EA is a bad EA, your balance does not determine its quality much
less one's risk appetite. Fusion is a bad product. Any trader on here and
especially an EA programmer such as myself and my friends can tell you, this
is not a good EA. Of course, if you had unlimited funds and you can risk it,
you can roll a dice and do well as well. That's not the point. I now have
more respect for ClickBank EA marketers after this Fusion fiasco.
But do let us know, everyone on here, that they actually have honored
the refund and what you actually submitted to them and what your
actual trading days were. So that none of us requesting refunds won't get
shafted with more surprises when refund request is made to them.
Dukascopy rules !!!
Membro Desde Sep 04, 2009
849 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 14:46
I understand all the anger you all feel about this "product".
But ask yourself why did you jump on this bandwagon...Seems the more expensive something is the more attractive it is for you...no matter whats hidden behind the curtain.
Next time switch the greed mode off and the brain on....
Don't buy anything that hasn't a verified LIVE trading acc. on myfxbook for at least 6 month with a reasonable performance to show. And don't pay fantasy-prices for it...
This Con-Fusion haux has again damaged the industry's already very questionable reputation.
But ask yourself why did you jump on this bandwagon...Seems the more expensive something is the more attractive it is for you...no matter whats hidden behind the curtain.
Next time switch the greed mode off and the brain on....
Don't buy anything that hasn't a verified LIVE trading acc. on myfxbook for at least 6 month with a reasonable performance to show. And don't pay fantasy-prices for it...
This Con-Fusion haux has again damaged the industry's already very questionable reputation.
Membro Desde Mar 04, 2010
50 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 15:04
Hi. First of all, you should know that me and my friends are
EA programming enthusiasts and we run our own EAs in
addition to working on them and recompiling them
constantly. And it should also be noted that we purchase
every single one hyped up to look at it. We never automatically
assume the worst... we test it and then we trash it. This is
what is needed so that newbies avoid garbage and avoid
being swindled. Fusion's sales page is also a reverse psych
sales pitch but it is a pitch nonetheless. They hype up their
product by trashing other marketers' marketing approach.
And really, what is transparent about anything they did?
Unless some of these competitors and including the winners
come on here verified and then say something honest,
who knows what really? I don't think even FXCM knows
whether these winners have been paid or not. Now, why
do me and my friends buy everything? To satisfy our curiosities and
to learn as well. We do decompile everything to look at the codes.
Not to steal it to rebrand it and sell it like others do but to learn
and to see if there is any merit to it. You should also know that most
of the EAs being sold are in fact at one time, free EAs posted freely
by innocent and naive programmers only to have it stolen and rebranded
for ClickBank marketing. I think most of us know this and it is true.
So, unless an EA is totally private, it really has no value really. Because
what most people think are true... a real good EA will never be sold
by those using it. It may pass around privately among friends but
they will never be sold for $97 on ClickBank. And I said it is overpriced,
not expensive. And clearly, Fusion is now bordering on scam or at the
very least false advertising. All I can say is that they had better honor
people's refund requests. We all know they will be flooded. FXCM
may end up losing businesses as well by being associated with these
guys peddling Fusion. And nobody has time to demo test a thing for 6
months and good EA does not need 6 months to show its true colors.
Or good trading strategy for that matter. An EA is nothing more than
automation of a trading strategy. And I don't see anything logical
with any of their EAs. And I am not angry at all... just slightly amused
at the gall of Fusion marketers. Despite their sales pitch, they did
not separate themselves from other marketers at all. All they did
was trash them while in the end being just like them which in itself
is either questionable or delusional. And what really is a fantasy price
for a good EA or a good trading strategy? We can all agree that it is
priceless not $97 on ClickBank. Or even $1,000+. And people should
stop insulting those who bought this and attack the marketers instead.
There is some bizarre logic among forex forums as well. They tend to
scoff at newbies who buy these things rather than trashing the
unscrupulous marketers. And I think Fusion marketers are no exception
since nothing is really transparent. I want to see these winners come
forth. If they were not paid or if this was not a real competition... a
fraud was perpetrated right? That's more important than why someone
bought this EA in my view. And again, these guys had better give out
refunds.
Dukascopy rules !!!
Membro Desde Dec 28, 2009
54 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 15:11
(editado há Mar 04, 2010 at 15:15)
Guys if we all make complaint..banks will be awared of that.. and maybe the refund will come... but strange anyway... prepare your lawyers or some hackers (i will blow their website and FAP's website also if they dont refund...)
Now about systems: Fusion sucks both versions... LMD sucks... Hirider the most profitable (only for a 10k account!!!!) ...
Now take a look at my poor DB+IL system how much it makes...
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/irbis/ildb/19927
Now about systems: Fusion sucks both versions... LMD sucks... Hirider the most profitable (only for a 10k account!!!!) ...
Now take a look at my poor DB+IL system how much it makes...
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/irbis/ildb/19927
Membro Desde Feb 25, 2010
95 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 17:46
I think it's still too early to make conclusive judgements on the EAs.
It's been only about 2 weeks since most of us have started testing. And it's good that the shit hits the fan right at the beginning where most, if not all of us, are demo-ing, allowing us to temper our settings for live trading.
Plus they appear to be still working at improving the EA's, which is good.
It's been only about 2 weeks since most of us have started testing. And it's good that the shit hits the fan right at the beginning where most, if not all of us, are demo-ing, allowing us to temper our settings for live trading.
Plus they appear to be still working at improving the EA's, which is good.
Membro Desde Sep 04, 2009
849 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 17:49
...which is not good, since it was promoted as the best EA ever.. til now its the worst BS ever
Membro Desde Mar 04, 2010
50 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 17:53
(editado há Mar 04, 2010 at 17:58)
It's too early? Are you kidding us? You had better hope that they
will honor the refund requests. Everything else is irrelevant. And
unless they do a total rewrite and wait for the end of their
second questionable competition to market more new EAs, I
don't see Fusion improving one bit. LMD was misadvertised and it
never should have even came in first place. It is a grossly dismal
EA. People get sidetracked by the fact that it placed first and
they don't even bother to look at the statements of LMD
and compare it to Volcano and HiRider. There is no way to improve
LMD. It royally is dismal. You really do not need 30 days to determine
if something has merit and you certainly don't need 30 trading days.
I just hope that those guys are not upto something here with
this 30 days refund policy. Now they are saying the membership
doors will be closed? Ya right... until the end of their second
EA competition right? Are they now coming off as just like all
the other EA marketers? They certainly are starting to smell
like one. Don't defend them just yet until they have established
a clear record of honoring the refund request. At least the ClickBank
marketers they trashed have no choice but ti give refunds since
ClickBank itself is highly honorable though most of ClickBank
marketers are questionable. We cannot say the same for
these guys and their weird choice of Plimus as a payment processor.
Hey but I have respect for most people in here because they
have actually bought it and tested it. On other forums all I see
are SCAM yellings from people who can't even afford to buy this.
Buy it, test it, and then trash it and only if it sucks. And Fusion sucks.
will honor the refund requests. Everything else is irrelevant. And
unless they do a total rewrite and wait for the end of their
second questionable competition to market more new EAs, I
don't see Fusion improving one bit. LMD was misadvertised and it
never should have even came in first place. It is a grossly dismal
EA. People get sidetracked by the fact that it placed first and
they don't even bother to look at the statements of LMD
and compare it to Volcano and HiRider. There is no way to improve
LMD. It royally is dismal. You really do not need 30 days to determine
if something has merit and you certainly don't need 30 trading days.
I just hope that those guys are not upto something here with
this 30 days refund policy. Now they are saying the membership
doors will be closed? Ya right... until the end of their second
EA competition right? Are they now coming off as just like all
the other EA marketers? They certainly are starting to smell
like one. Don't defend them just yet until they have established
a clear record of honoring the refund request. At least the ClickBank
marketers they trashed have no choice but ti give refunds since
ClickBank itself is highly honorable though most of ClickBank
marketers are questionable. We cannot say the same for
these guys and their weird choice of Plimus as a payment processor.
Hey but I have respect for most people in here because they
have actually bought it and tested it. On other forums all I see
are SCAM yellings from people who can't even afford to buy this.
Buy it, test it, and then trash it and only if it sucks. And Fusion sucks.
Dukascopy rules !!!
Membro Desde Mar 03, 2010
26 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 18:16
My message to Customer Service was ... I am not asking for a refund, but ....
The response was:
----
Trade ANY of the FRWC's Royal Trader robots on a DEMO account (they are FREE to open with any FX broker) or live account, as you wish, for 30 days.
If you are not happy with the results, NO MATTER what they are, send us your account statement within 60 days of purchasing 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!
------
They also mentioned the sales cutoff. You can't comeback. I followed up with asking if they considered Fusion one of those, since that is what I am primarily running. No answer, yet, but hasn't been 24 hours. And that they should make refunds undconditiional since I am sure there will be a waiting list of those wishing to take my place
I also suggested that if they are admitting problems and intended to tweak the system, they should just extend the guarantee from the date of whatever fixes they make. I'd give it the extra time, if a revised system could prove itself.
I doubt it, though.
The response was:
----
Trade ANY of the FRWC's Royal Trader robots on a DEMO account (they are FREE to open with any FX broker) or live account, as you wish, for 30 days.
If you are not happy with the results, NO MATTER what they are, send us your account statement within 60 days of purchasing 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!
------
They also mentioned the sales cutoff. You can't comeback. I followed up with asking if they considered Fusion one of those, since that is what I am primarily running. No answer, yet, but hasn't been 24 hours. And that they should make refunds undconditiional since I am sure there will be a waiting list of those wishing to take my place
I also suggested that if they are admitting problems and intended to tweak the system, they should just extend the guarantee from the date of whatever fixes they make. I'd give it the extra time, if a revised system could prove itself.
I doubt it, though.
Membro Desde Mar 04, 2010
50 postagens
Mar 04, 2010 at 19:18
(editado há Mar 04, 2010 at 19:18)
Ya, we still cannot figure out the reason for
torturing those who want a refund by forcing
them to run a demo for 30 full days. They
want to torture you for a month and make
you really sick to your stomach? Ya, it had
better be no questions asked refund like it
states. I hope for all waiting to get a refund
that they don't bring forth more weird stipulations.
There will be nobody waiting to take your place.
Now just about everybody knows that Fusion
is greatly lacking. One word of them not giving
out refunds and they are done. Right? Of course.
And their second competition ends at the end
of March eh? Let's all watch them open the
doors again for "limited time".
torturing those who want a refund by forcing
them to run a demo for 30 full days. They
want to torture you for a month and make
you really sick to your stomach? Ya, it had
better be no questions asked refund like it
states. I hope for all waiting to get a refund
that they don't bring forth more weird stipulations.
There will be nobody waiting to take your place.
Now just about everybody knows that Fusion
is greatly lacking. One word of them not giving
out refunds and they are done. Right? Of course.
And their second competition ends at the end
of March eh? Let's all watch them open the
doors again for "limited time".
Dukascopy rules !!!
