The biggest losing run on this account is 16 trades. Take those 16 trades and put them at the start, at the risk the account was running at then and they would have generated a loss of $8375 which would have wiped the account.
The reason the account is over leveraged at the start is because EA marketers run multiple accounts and the ones that work get marketed. It's the best way to rise to the top of MyFxBook which at the end of the day is their prime sales pitch.
You're reasoning is flawed if you are looking at what this account did historically. Look at what it could do in the future to decide your risk.
Best regards Steve
Does not make sense to me... I know what it did in the past... and considering not much has chg in code I can make judgement of what is going to do in the future.
At this point in time is already obvious which pairs are suitable for this EA and which ones are not. So, this alone will change how you play with it in the future.
So, ignoring what it did in the past , does not sound reasonable to me.
My use of historical data in this thread implicitly means I don't ignore the past, something I didn't say. I was saying that you need to look at historical performance and then consider what could happen in the future. Look at the figures - a 16 trades losing streak ( which we've seen ) would have blown the account at the risk the account started with.
I'd also just like to clear something up. When we're talking about percentage risk. I'm talking about percentage risk, i.e. the percentage I'm risking based on the calculation I've made for each pair based on my setting of the Risk parameter of the EA. Which is not percentage risk despite what the manual says. Here's what Jared has to say on it.
I need to update the manual. We have since changed the system since the manually was originally written.
The default settings with 0.05 risk, risk about 1-2% per trade. 2% being the max if the SL was set higher than 20 pips. Which will happen on occasion.
And yes, we are both referring to the same setting.
It would be useful if he did update the manual and advise people as there is as a consequence some inaccurate information flow potentially happening here.
Best regards Steve
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.