collapse

Author Topic: forex cyborg  (Read 92510 times)

Offline ForexCyborg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #345 on: February 19, 2019, 07:59:46 AM »
Hello Humble,

as far as I know, Forex Germany seems to use the half default risk. So about 1.75% risk per trade.

My accounts are running with 4.5% risk per trade (except the high risk account)

Offline Byte

  • DonbonsPrivateGroup
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 561
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #346 on: February 19, 2019, 02:27:33 PM »
Thank you Forex Cyborg for your thoughts. I am setting mine up with 4.5% per trade which I had before and leave the correlation protection in place. I am very curious to see how this goes.

Online nwboater

  • DonbonsPrivateGroup
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1657
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #347 on: February 26, 2019, 03:59:13 PM »
Yesterday was another rough day for Cyborg! :(  The vendor's reference account @ FXPIG lost 12% yesterday and is down 22% for the year. I am having similar results.

2018 was a good year on the reference account gaining 133%. But unfortunately since I started running it on July 10, 2018 to now the reference account has lost 8.6%. As usual I have very bad timing! That's a little over 7 months of stagnation/loss.

As the vendor suggests I try to take a long term view but this is getting difficult to bear! Not long ago we were given a new version that I imagine was re-optimized. It also had 2 more pairs added. So with recent optimization I'm not too sure what more he can do.

HumbleTrader, I think you have been running with only the pairs that have done well in the recent past? How is that working out?

Cheers,
Rod

Offline bearnakedbull

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 913
  • Be afraid, very afraid!
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #348 on: February 26, 2019, 04:19:26 PM »
Similar dilemma here as well. I started in June as was giving until Christmas. I had nice gains into year end and them bam. To make things worse I added the extra license which was a waste of money at this point. As I mentioned several times on the BS topic, unless you can gain some decent income then this is all an academic experiment. The VPS, the license and the time spent just to lose money have me very cllose to quiting forex altogether.
 I will i give it until the end of May which will make one year at the current the broker with this EA and if I am not winning by then you can say goodbye to the bnb.
I have disabled some gbp pairs in effort to return to winning fyi.
Regards, bnb

Offline vidagig

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #349 on: February 26, 2019, 07:27:40 PM »
Hi Paul and everyone

Been lurking for some months and this is my first post. I'll share my ideas, questions and observations in a constructive spirit of us all including 'the vendor' being on the same side of the same team.

Firstly my compliments and thanks to Paul for all his work over many years developing this very smart and consistently extremely effective (when it works) system; and providing a high level of support, transparency and engagement which I'm sure we all appreciate.

I hope Paul and all the longstanding members here will address my questions with clear and logical answers and or discussion; being frank and possessed of sufficient humility to acknowledge when something needs looking into or reconsidering, etc.

OK, so here goes... in some attempted logical progression of thought and priorities.

Apologies in advance for the length, any lack of tact, and/or mistakes.

Preface: There is much useful data for us all to consider on the MFXBook accounts - I will refer to the FXPig account because it has the longest history.

It dates back to the potential 'red flag' 'custom start date' of 9 May 2017 ( I do recall this question being addressed somewhere in the past to the effect that prior to this date other systems were running on this account or something plausible to that effect vs. e.g. the system took a 50% drawdown in April 2017 : ) I note that setting an earlier 'custom start date' does not reveal more data. Regardless this is not very important - the system and broker is verified to the (reasonable) extent possible on MyFXBook.
(and we can all verify it is trading on our accounts quite accurately in line with the MyFXBook data)

System strategy and Risk:Reward

We don't know the strategy - we bought a 'black box' and aren't privy to Paul's valuable Intellectual Property (fair enough).
We can deduce some clues from the trade history and individual trades:

1.a) We can see it is not a Martingale system - it doesn't add more and bigger trades when losing which works great until it blows up - we've all seen plenty of those systems..

b) We can see that it does a super-human job of sitting through a long big open loss ('adverse excursion' being the colorful under-stated term) and cleverly exiting at or close to breakeven. An aside here: I note often when this happens the trade goes into profit very shortly after exit - so presume Paul has not found a way of eking out a consistent (backtested) profit vs. just getting out at close to breakeven in these situations. This is a good point for further testing, but I digress somewhat..

c) BUT the Stop Losses of e.g. say 80 - 120 pips are very large, whilst the Take Profit is e.g. - based on Average Winning trade - stats - about 10 pips. So, you need +- 10 winners for every loser just to break even. I.e. this system has a very high Loss to Profit Size Ratio of 10:1. So, to consistently make a profit would require a Winners to Losing Trades ratio of more than 10:1.

The stats show Longs won 66% and Shorts Won 71% so if my rudimentary math is correct that's and average of 68.5% Win: Loss Ratio - say generously a 7:1 Win: Loss ratio - less than the required at least 10:1 illustrated above.

Yes, I know it often takes smaller losses - says average loss -11,9 pips vs average win +9.11 pips - and has bigger Take Profit targets and often takes a bigger profit and even a huge windfall profit occasionally, but consider further - I'm just trying to illustrate and apply some basic money management / system principles here, and how they pertain to the performance we're experiencing:

d) The Win: Loss ratio and 'Equity Curve' (on the Growth Chart) from the end of the 25% drawdown on 30 August 2017 - that started from the Equity peak on 27 July 2017 was an excellent consistently winning recovery by December 2018 ... and continued well, until July 2018:
There were +-8 biggish losing days vs. a good few hundred winning trades (and/or days) - I'm not going to count.
E.g. let's say for illustrative purposes: 200 winners vs. 10 losers = 20:1 Winners:Losers ratio; and Loss:Profit Size Ratio 10:1 = a long-term consistently winning system - fantastic, I'm all in!

e) Worth noting: even with this excellent performance after the above- mentioned drawdown - it took +- 3.5 months (to 12 Dec 2017) to recover back to the July 2017 'High Water Mark' (Peak). Then a spectacular January 2018 +55% accounts for much of the gains for 2018 (if you got in before July) - the remaining 6 months of 2018 being roughly breakeven to losing and very volatile.
[Note: math and stats are not my strong suite so apologies for any mistakes here but I hope the critical concept of Win: Loss ratio coupled with Profit: Loss size ratio is adequately communicated - and how it pertains to the stats we have to work with - which do not appear to look good]

3.a) In my experience and I'm sure you'll agree - the 'equity curve' or the 'Growth' chart is very important and informative. I also find it effective to analyse it with basic TA like any instrument to assess the probability of future growth and potential risk vs.reward, drawdown behaviour etc.
- Since July 2018 the system has had far too high both Losers:Winners Ratio and Loss Size: Profit size ratio = a consistent loser. We have a chart that is consolidating with massive volatility (20 - 30%) = bad. It hasn't 'fallen off a cliff' and blown up, but the risk reward of this kind of performance - is a coin flip at best - especially if you start at a bad time - like many have e.g. in July 2017. This is not something any rational let alone conservative investment manager would risk worthwhile amounts of money on.

b) The only people making consistent (and guaranteed) money here is 'the vendor(/s)' and the brokers (and anyone who may have a 'referral' or some other cut of the brokers' spread and trade commissions) - on a system that trades EXTREMELY frequently. This system is a broker's dream money machine - especially if they've identified you as a consistent loser and are on the other side of your trades in addition to spread and comish, but I digress again.

c) In my past experience with a rare few excellent systems - as with traders - it is helpful to pause or reduce risk based on the equity curve - just like the stock market - when it looks like it's hit a bottom and recovered - try get back in. Or, if it's been consolidating - pause - and if it breaks to the upside - try get back in. Or if it's run up hard, and taken a couple of hits it may have peaked so reduce risk or stand aside etc etc.
       - Paul's preface in the instructions to view this as a long term investment and prepare for volatility is generally good advice  - but it is also true that it is prudent risk and money-management to remain as rational as possible, to "cut your losses and let your winners run" and/or take your profits and stand aside if you're uncertain or 'emotionally destabilized' (to paraphrase Mark Douglas in his 'Disciplined Trader'). And to accept and try to learn from your mistakes, accepting you made your best call on the available info to the best of your ability in this supremely challenging environment.

4. Point being - Since July the system is screaming at us that it is broken - it is a bad bet - and you'd do better to stand aside until it is fixed if it is possible. I'd rather miss a 20% profit than have to take a 20% loss and the risk and time just to get back to break-even - as mentioned in the 3 month recovery of the 2017 drawdown.

5. I'm not sure people appreciate the extremely high risk being taken on each of the frequent trades: The 'default' 'Risk Per Trade' setting is 3% and people are cranking it up to 4.5%. At 3% loss per trade you're taking a 9% loss on one losing day with 3 losers. 3 of those days and you're rapidly in a 30% drawdown requiring a 40% return (taking 3 - 4 months) just to get back to breakeven. And as mentioned this system trades extremely frequently with quite often from 3 to 6 trades on a day - that's a lot of trades - arguably it's 'over-trading'
Yes, at your high risk level of 4.5% you can recover quickly - as you have - only to give it all back in a day or 3 - repeatedly - as has been the case since July 2017 - 8 long and painful months ago.

6. The backtests of V 1.3 on the website (I have analysed them in detail using EA Analyser) and there are issues I may get into later, but for now attempting brevity (and failing dismally), the salient points are:
The individual currencies and the 'portfolio backtests' show fantastic curves over a credible 8 years data until December 2018.
Here's the crucial point: there has been NO forward testing of version 1.3. before with 'gay abandon' (not that there's anything wrong with that) and hopium we all cranked up the risk.

Also, there are no comparable (identical settings and date period) backtests comparing V 1.2 to V 1.3 - so any improvement can be assessed and verified.

Not only that, but V1.3 is not being publicly forward tested on a separate account to compare with V1.2 to verify if it is actually better! Also, there was no 'out-of -sample' backtesting done - to verify that the system continues to perform reasonably in line with the data it was presumably highly optimized on (possibly heavily over-optimized).
So we're putting blind faith into a system that has been optimized spectacularly for the past with no clue how it should be expected to perform in future. Well, version 1.3 has been out for 2 months so our woefully inadequate forward test indicates it continues the very dangerous performance of version 1.2 since July 2017. You all know the standard disclaimer about "past performance is not indicative of future returns" etc.

7. NB: I think a very important part of the MYFXBook historical data is not being considered:
- This being the 'Advanced Statistics' / Summary - ranked by Profit - from worst to best.
- Surely it must be sensible to remove or at least drastically reduce risk on (at least) the 6 currencies that don't even show a nett profit in over 2 years of history?!
- I know there may be an argument for the 'portfolio blending' effect - that combining nett losing strategies with winning ones can help to smooth out or even improve the overall performance, but considering the performance I don't buy it.

8. Re. Brexit: This has been going on for 2 or so years and (appears to be) only getting worse - and won't be ending anytime soon methinks.
There are 5 x GBP currency pairs - not to mention the many Euro pairs. This time looks like it IS different: the market has been changed - in the past year or two - versus the 6 years of historical data from 2011 - 2016 that this system has been (over?) optimized on - remember it was backtested and optimized from 2011 to 2018 so it does includes some of the 'Brexit Years' but they've been 'odd' years and the system isn't exactly 'killing it'.

I will submit that anyone continuing to trade this should pause and reflect if they're being rational and to consider to stop or drastically reduce their risk setting and funds at risk. I also request Paul to pause and reflect and be very frank with himself in deciding the best way forward; and to be even more transparent with those who have paid a lot for his system in addition to the considerable time and losses many have endured - yes admittedly at ones own risk. (e.g. perhaps via email or a password protected area of his website for verified owners)

For what it's worth I (also) bought this in about June 2018 and fortuitously - at most tested it sporadically for some months on  0.1 or max 1% risk on a small account. I had hoped to trade it on a larger account. Fortunately my painfully earned risk aversion served me well. I hope nobody has had too painful a learning experience.

OK this is way too long already, but wait, there's more.. - you also get...

So, just to add a couple points.

1. We have no backtests of the 'conservative' setting (whatever that does in the 'black box'). It should also be back-tested and presented to compare. We are dependant on Paul and trusting him for (honest) backtests as I for one don't have 8 years historical tick data for 20 currencies or the time or inclination to do this. It's what I paid for.

2. I think Paul is a VERY talented and experienced trader and programmer. I think he's done a better job than most at managing risk - in his strategy and programming. But the risk level is too high; and NB it does not trade selectively enough. So, regrettably - the system in its current form does not appear viable. I hope Paul will consider to go back to the drawing board and make the system's performance more consistent, less volatile; and (possibly much) more selective in its trades - with consistently improved risk/reward (Win:Loss ratio coupled with Profit: Loss size ratio); perhaps requiring lower profit expectations - with the advantage of consistently lower potential drawdowns - because THEN you can viably consider increasing the risk settings and/or trading on account sizes that matter.

b) I also want to emphasize my appreciation and good impression of Paul (based on due-diligence) and commend him highly - as a rare person of integrity in this game fraught with scammers, fraudsters, poseurs, amateurs and the possibly delusional. Thank you Paul! I encourage and urge you to persist with your great work over all these years so far.

3. It is widely known that you do not trade (or substantially reduce your risk) - especially automated systems - from about 20 December to 10 January. Not to mention the US summer months July & August one should be cautious - in these thinly traded low volume times where shennanigans can and are played by those with large bags to swing. Being risk averse you may miss some big winners but they won't 'carry you out on a stretcher' and you get to come back and play tomorrow.

4. Lastly quoting from the website: "...   It incorporates neural networks and deep learning,..." Rearry? - it doesn't appear to be learning very well - care to elaborate on the use of these fashionable buzzwords or verify this? - without disclosing any IP, of course.

I hope this will be received and responded to in the positive spirit it is intended. I know tact and brevity are not my most endearing qualities..
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 09:52:22 PM by vidagig »

Offline Humble Trader's Fx

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1497
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #350 on: February 26, 2019, 09:08:13 PM »
Hi Paul and everyone

Been lurking for some months and this is my first post. I'll share my ideas, questions and observations in a constructive spirit of us all including 'the vendor' being on the same side of the same team.

Firstly my compliments and thanks to Paul for all his work over many years developing this very smart and consistently extremely effective (when it works) system; and providing a high level of support, transparency and engagement which I'm sure we all appreciate.

I hope Paul and all the longstanding members here will address my questions with clear and logical answers and or discussion; being frank and possessed of sufficient humility to acknowledge when something needs looking into or reconsidering, etc.

OK, so here goes... in some attempted logical progression of thought and priorities.

Apologies in advance for the length, any lack of tact, and/or mistakes.

Preface: There is much useful data for us all to consider on the MFXBook accounts - I will refer to the FXPig account because it has the longest history.

It dates back to the potential 'red flag' 'custom start date' of 9 May 2017 ( I do recall this question being addressed somewhere in the past to the effect that prior to this date other systems were running on this account or something plausible to that effect vs. e.g. the system took a 50% drawdown in April 2017 :) I note that setting an earlier 'custom start date' does not reveal more data. Regardless this is not very important - the system and broker is verified to the (reasonable) extent possible on MYFXBook.
(and we can all verify it is trading on our accounts quite accurately in line with the MyFXBook data)

System strategy and Risk:Reward

We don't know the strategy - we bought a 'black box' and aren't privy to Paul's valuable Intellectual Property (fair enough).
We can deduce some clues from the trade history and individual trades:

1.a) We can see it is not a Martingale system - it doesn't add more and bigger trades when losing which works great until it blows up - we've all seen plenty of those systems..

b) We can see that it does a super-human job of sitting through a long big open loss ('adverse excursion' being the colorful under-stated term) and cleverly exiting at or close to breakeven. An aside here: I note often when this happens the trade goes into profit very shortly after exit - so presume Paul has not found a way of eking out a consistent (backtested) profit vs. just getting out at close to breakeven in these situations. This is a good point for further testing, but I digress somewhat..

c) BUT the Stop Losses of e.g. say 80 - 120 pips are very large, whilst the Take Profit is e.g. - based on Average Winning trade - stats - about 10 pips. So, you need +- 10 winners for every loser just to break even. I.e. this system has a very high Loss to Profit Size Ratio of 10:1. So, to consistently make a profit would require a Winners to Losing Trades ratio of more than 10:1.

The stats show Longs won 66% and Shorts Won 71% so if my rudimentary math is correct that's and average of 68.5% Win: Loss Ratio - say generously a 7:1 Win: Loss ratio - less than the required at least 10:1 illustrated above.

Yes, I know it often takes smaller losses - says average loss -11,9 pips vs average win +9.11 pips - and has bigger Take Profit targets and often takes a bigger profit and even a huge windfall profit occasionally, but consider further - I'm just trying to illustrate and apply some basic money management / system principles here, and how they pertain to the performance we're experiencing: (again apologies for any mistakes in trying to communicate this best I can)

2. The Win: Loss ratio and 'Equity Curve' (on the Growth Chart) from the end of the 25% drawdown on 30 August 2017 - that started from the Equity peak on 27 July 2017 was an excellent consistently winning recovery by December 2018 ... and continued well, until July 2018:
There were +-8 biggish losing days vs. a good few hundred winning trades (I'm not going to count) - e.g. let's say for illustrative purposes: 10 losers vs 200 winners = 100:5 Winners:Losers ratio; and Loss:Profit Size Ratio 10:1 = a long-term consistently winning system - fantastic, I'm all in!

- Worth noting: even with this excellent performance after the above- mentioned drawdown - it took +- 3.5 months (to 12 Dec 2017) to recover back to the July 2017 'High Water Mark' (Peak). Then a spectacular January 2018 +55% accounts for most of the gains for 2018 (if you got in at a good time) - the rest of the 2018 year being roughly breakeven to modestly profitable if very volatile.
[Note: math and stats are not my strong suite so apologies for any mistakes here but I hope the critical concept of Win: Loss ratio coupled with Profit: Loss size ratio is adequately communicated - and how it pertains to the stats we have to work with - which do not appear to look good]

3.a) In my experience and I'm sure you'll agree - the 'equity curve' or the 'Growth' chart is very important and informative. I also find it effective to analyse it with basic TA like any instrument to assess the probability of future growth and potential risk vs.reward, drawdown behaviour etc.
- Since July 2017 the system has had far too high both Losers:Winners Ratio and Loss Size: Profit size ratio = a consistent loser. We have a chart that is consolidating with massive volatility (20 - 30%) = bad. It hasn't 'fallen off a cliff' and blown up, but the risk reward of this kind of performance - is a coin flip at best - especially if you start at a bad time - like many have e.g. in July 2017. This is not something any rational let alone conservative investment manager would risk worthwhile amounts of money on.

b) The only people making consistent (and guaranteed) money here is 'the vendor(/s)' and the brokers (and anyone who may have a 'referral' or some other cut of the brokers' spread and trade commissions) - on a system that trades EXTREMELY frequently. This system is a broker's dream money machine - especially if they've identified you as a consistent loser and are on the other side of your trades in addition to spread and comish, but I digress again.

c) In my past experience with a rare few excellent systems - as with traders - it is helpful to pause or reduce risk based on the equity curve - just like the stock market - when it looks like it's hit a bottom and recovered - try get back in. Or, if it's been consolidating - pause - and if it breaks to the upside - try get back in. Or if it's run up hard, and taken a couple of hits it may have peaked so reduce risk or stand aside etc etc.
       - Paul's preface in the instructions to view this as a long term investment and prepare for volatility is generally good advice  - but it is also true that it is prudent risk and money-management to remain as rational as possible, to "cut your losses and let your winners run" and/or take your profits and stand aside if you're uncertain or 'emotionally destabilized' (to paraphrase Mark Douglas in his 'Disciplined Trader'). And to accept and try to learn from your mistakes, accepting you made your best call on the available info to the best of your ability in this supremely challenging environment.

4. Point being - Since July the system is screaming at us that it is broken - it is a bad bet - and you'd do better to stand aside until it is fixed if it is possible. I'd rather miss a 20% profit than have to take a 20% loss and the risk and time just to get back to break-even - as mentioned in the 3 month recovery of the 2017 drawdown.

5. I'm not sure people appreciate the extremely high risk being taken on each of the frequent trades: The 'default' 'Risk Per Trade' setting is 3% and people are cranking it up to 4.5%. At 3% loss per trade you're taking a 9% loss on one losing day with 3 losers. 3 of those days and you're rapidly in a 30% drawdown requiring a 40% return (taking 3 - 4 months) just to get back to breakeven. And as mentioned this system trades extremely frequently with quite often from 3 to 6 trades on a day - that's a lot of trades - arguably it's 'over-trading'
Yes, at your high risk level of 4.5% you can recover quickly - as you have - only to give it all back in a day or 3 - repeatedly - as has been the case since July 2017 - 8 long and painful months ago.

6. The backtests of V 1.3 on the website (I have analysed them in detail using EA Analyser) and there are issues I may get into later, but for now attempting brevity (and failing dismally), the salient points are:
The individual currencies and the 'portfolio backtests' show fantastic curves over a credible 8 years data until December 2018.
Here's the crucial point: there has been NO forward testing of version 1.3. before with 'gay abandon' (not that there's anything wrong with that) and hopium we all cranked up the risk.

Also, there are no comparable (identical settings and date period) backtests comparing V 1.2 to V 1.3 - so any improvement can be assessed and verified.

Not only that, but V1.3 is not being publicly forward tested on a separate account to compare with V1.2 to verify if it is actually better! Also, there was no 'out-of -sample' backtesting done - to verify that the system continues to perform reasonably in line with the data it was presumably highly optimized on (possibly heavily over-optimized).
So we're putting blind faith into a system that has been optimized spectacularly for the past with no clue how it should be expected to perform in future. Well, version 1.3 has been out for 2 months so our woefully inadequate forward test indicates it continues the very dangerous performance of version 1.2 since July 2017. You all know the standard disclaimer about "past performance is not indicative of future returns" etc.

7. NB: I think a very important part of the MYFXBook historical data is not being considered:
- This being the 'Advanced Statistics' / Summary - ranked by Profit - from worst to best.
- Surely it must be sensible to remove or at least drastically reduce risk on (at least) the 6 currencies that don't even show a nett profit in over 2 years of history?!
- I know there may be an argument for the 'portfolio blending' effect - that combining nett losing strategies with winning ones can help to smooth out or even improve the overall performance, but considering the performance I don't buy it.

8. Re. Brexit: This has been going on for 2 or so years and (appears to be) only getting worse - and won't be ending anytime soon methinks.
There are 5 x GBP currency pairs - not to mention the many Euro pairs. This time looks like it IS different: the market has been changed - in the past year or two - versus the 6 years of historical data from 2011 - 2016 that this system has been (over?) optimized on - remember it was backtested and optimized from 2011 to 2018 so it does includes some of the 'Brexit Years' but they've been 'odd' years and the system isn't exactly 'killing it'.

I will submit that anyone continuing to trade this should pause and reflect if they're being rational and to consider to stop or drastically reduce their risk setting and funds at risk. I also request Paul to pause and reflect and be very frank with himself in deciding the best way forward; and to be even more transparent with those who have paid a lot for his system in addition to the considerable time and losses many have endured - yes admittedly at ones own risk. (e.g. perhaps via email or a password protected area of his website for verified owners)

For what it's worth I (also) bought this in about June 2018 and fortuitously - at most tested it sporadically for some months on  0.1 or max 1% risk on a small account. I had hoped to trade it on a larger account. Fortunately my painfully earned risk aversion served me well. I hope nobody has had too painful a learning experience.

OK this is way too long already, but wait, there's more.. - you also get...

So, just to add a couple points.

1. We have no backtests of the 'conservative' setting (whatever that does in the 'black box'). It should also be back-tested and presented to compare. We are dependant on Paul and trusting him for (honest) backtests as I for one don't have 8 years historical tick data for 20 currencies or the time or inclination to do this. It's what I paid for.

2. I think Paul is a VERY talented and experienced trader and programmer. I think he's done a better job than most at managing risk - in his strategy and programming. But the risk level is too high; and NB it does not trade selectively enough. So, regrettably - the system in its current form does not appear viable. I hope Paul will consider to go back to the drawing board and make the system's performance more consistent, less volatile; and (possibly much) more selective in its trades - with consistently improved risk/reward (Win:Loss ratio coupled with Profit: Loss size ratio); perhaps requiring lower profit expectations - with the advantage of consistently lower potential drawdowns - because THEN you can viably consider increasing the risk settings and/or trading on account sizes that matter.

b) I also want to emphasize my appreciation and good impression of Paul (based on due-diligence) and commend him highly - as a rare person of integrity in this game fraught with scammers, fraudsters, poseurs, amateurs and the possibly delusional. Thank you Paul! I encourage and urge you to persist with your great work over all these years so far.

3. It is widely known that you do not trade (or substantially reduce your risk) - especially automated systems - from about 20 December to 10 January. Not to mention the US summer months July & August one should be cautious - in these thinly traded low volume times where shennanigans can and are played by those with large bags to swing. Being risk averse you may miss some big winners but you they don't carry you out on a stretcher and you get to come back and play tomorrow.

4. Lastly quoting from the website: "...   It incorporates neural networks and deep learning,..." Rearry? - it doesn't appear to be learning very well - care to elaborate on the use of these fashionable buzzwords or verify this? - without disclosing any IP, of course.

I hope this will be received and responded to in the positive spirit it is intended. I know tact and brevity are not my most endearing qualities..

Excellent analysis, vidagig; and welcome to DonnaFx.

What I like most about Paul is that he has put his own skin on his EA's performance. There are at least 5 real accounts I can count, not including that of forexgermany which show profit, although some with some DD as you pointed out. I am sure Paul will take into account your observations and I am eager to hear his response as well.  :)


Regards,
HumbleTrader
We humbly approach the Forex Market and take only what is earned through our hard work and intelligence.


Online nwboater

  • DonbonsPrivateGroup
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1657
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #351 on: February 28, 2019, 03:01:30 PM »
I just sent Paul (ForexCyborg) an email asking him to respond here.

FWIW I have stopped Cyborg which was a difficult decision. :(

Cheers,
Rod
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 03:03:50 PM by nwboater »

Offline Tolwyn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #352 on: March 05, 2019, 02:17:03 PM »
I thought I would jump in and share my (brief) experience with the EA:

  • Based on my backtests, I am running the following currency pair at the moment: AUDCAD, AUDNZD, CHFJPY, GBPCAD, EURAUD, EURCAD, EURNZD, EURJPY, USDCAD, USDCHF, USDJPY.
  • All symbols are using risk per trade = 1 (with the exception of EURAD, which is set to 0.5).
  • Trading on Friday is disabled.
  • Based on my experience, the EA results can be highly broker-dependant and running EA on the GBP symbol is a high-risk proposition at the moment (EURGBP being a prominent example, which performs great in the BTs, but accrues losses during this tumultuous times) (I am only running GBPCAD on this EA because it performs better than the Wallstreet Asia).
  • Should you wish to take a look at my backtests (which differ from the backtests available on the official website) feel free to do so. These were made using Dukascopy data while utilizing symbol specs from JFD Brokers.

EDIT: re-added the OneDrive link, which was removed by a moderator (OneDrive is using an URL shortener by default, which apparently counts as obfuscation around these neck of the woods  ::))
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 02:34:27 PM by Tolwyn »

Online nwboater

  • DonbonsPrivateGroup
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1657
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #353 on: March 05, 2019, 03:28:24 PM »
Hi Tolwyn,

Welcome to DonnaForex and thanks very much for your excellent first post. The sharing you have done is really in the spirit of this Forum and I'm sure will help many. :)

Cheers,
Rod

Online nwboater

  • DonbonsPrivateGroup
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1657
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #354 on: March 05, 2019, 03:29:40 PM »
I just sent Paul (ForexCyborg) an email asking him to respond here.

FWIW I have stopped Cyborg which was a difficult decision. :(

Cheers,
Rod

I got a reply from Paul after his vacation. He made what I think are some valid points. He referred to the FXPIG reference account which I also did in my email to him.

1. Cyborg made over 100% in 2018.
2. At the beginning of this year there was 0% DD until the Flash Crash occurred.
3. Re the stagnation period the current DD started this year.
4. I started Cyborg at a high mark. By stopping now I am doing it at a low point. Paul feels 100% confident that it will recover.
5. Using his Risk settings one should not stop it during at DD lower than 30%. It's not there yet.

After considering his email and taking another look at my results I am going to start it again.

Due to Brexit I will probably remove some G pairs, or at least greatly reduce their risk.

Cheers,
Rod

Offline Humble Trader's Fx

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1497
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #355 on: April 11, 2019, 11:48:10 AM »
Hello, Paul.

What is the latest version of Cyborg; I am still on v1.2?


Regards,
HumbleTrader
We humbly approach the Forex Market and take only what is earned through our hard work and intelligence.


Offline ForexCyborg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #356 on: April 11, 2019, 12:27:28 PM »
Hello, Paul.

What is the latest version of Cyborg; I am still on v1.2?


Regards,
HumbleTrader

Hello Humble,

the lastest version is v1.3 since the 5.1.2019
I send out a e-mail to all customers + posted it here in the thread.

I will send out the download link via e-mail for you

Offline Humble Trader's Fx

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1497
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #357 on: April 11, 2019, 01:04:18 PM »
Hello, Paul.

What is the latest version of Cyborg; I am still on v1.2?


Regards,
HumbleTrader

Hello Humble,

the lastest version is v1.3 since the 5.1.2019
I send out a e-mail to all customers + posted it here in the thread.

I will send out the download link via e-mail for you

Thanks, Paul. I think I misread the screen: On the right "smiley" it post v1.2 but on the detailed side on the left of the screen, the version is 1.3.

Early morning, vision issue... LOL :o


Thanks anyway.

Regards,
HumbleTrader
We humbly approach the Forex Market and take only what is earned through our hard work and intelligence.


Offline ross80

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #358 on: April 12, 2019, 09:24:16 AM »
Monthly profit looks to me a little low. On the other hand, Forex Cyborg owner has published link to myfxbook but when I visit to check, there are many locked details such as balance, equity, profit... last but not least open trades are closed as well.

Dear Forex Cybrog, Is it possible to keep these locks opened? thx

Offline SJWkiller

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
Re: forex cyborg
« Reply #359 on: April 12, 2019, 11:05:58 AM »
Monthly profit looks to me a little low. On the other hand, Forex Cyborg owner has published link to myfxbook but when I visit to check, there are many locked details such as balance, equity, profit... last but not least open trades are closed as well.

Dear Forex Cybrog, Is it possible to keep these locks opened? thx

You dont need the balance opened if the trading history is open. There you can see the trade sizes and calculate approximate account value. As for open trades, you cant ask for that. Those are real time trades and there is no reason for them to be open to public. Nobody who wants to sell their system will publicise the currently open trades....

 

browse forum