Tom'sEa WPFX LIVE Diskussion

How large is your account?

Oop, sorry. Didn't read previous posts.

Alright......To give the new traders to the market some perspective on the insanity of martingale drawdowns..... Today the market was bound in a fairly tight range and closed almost exactly where it opened. I had 4 positions closed today, all on the USDCAD pair for a total of about +$500. During the market craziness my drawdown fluctuated tremendously. At the lowest point of the day, I had a DD of approx -$8,000 , and the DD is currently at about -$18,000. So....the drawdown fluctuated about $10,000 throughout the course of the day. This is minimum risk.....4 pairs (eurusd, gbpusd, usdcad, & eurgbp). The account started at $40,000 a month ago, and is now just short of $50,000. At no point in time has the DD ever been low enough that I could close out all positions and be above my initial deposit amount.

Please, understand that this system WILL tax your account to the maximum limit until it blows your account. All it needs is one solid trend on a single pair. Trends are not very common at the moment, but eventually, the market will start trending again. At that point in time, Whatever pair hits the big trend will be the one to wipe your account clean. It only takes one pair to do it. By the time you realize you are in a solid trend that isn't going to pull back enough to close out without a huge loss, it will be too late. The reason why i am saying this is to prepare you for the inevitable. How fast can it happen?? In realtime.....with my account....I have seen a 50% DD and it only took 3 days for it to develop. It started Nov 14th, 2011 and took until Nov 16th, 2011 to get there. This was technically a 2 day trend as day 3 went sideways. My point is, if I had 50% DD in 3 days, what would have happened if the market had continued trending for 4 days, or even an entire week? The answer is, Margin Call. I have 500:1 leverage on this account and it is running minimum risk.

The real question now is.....How do you deal with it. In the EURUSD only, the positions started with 0.4 lots.....it now has 3 of those.....and in one more of 1.3 lots....add in one more for 2.5 lots.....and add in one more for 3.8 lots... So, in the EURUSD, it has a total of 8.8 lots open at an effective avg price of 1.3561. Current price is 1.3464....so I have the equivalent of an 8.8 lot position open that is currently sitting at -97 pips. Figure $88/pip and you get -$8,536. That is ONE pair. The DD on ONE pair is nearly 25% of my account.....and the market may go down further. 3 days. That is how fast this happened.

I am not telling you this to keep you from using this EA, but I believe it is only fair to have full disclosure. I am tired of being taken advantage of and seeing others being taken advantage of. The only way we are ever going to stop the nonsense is with to fight to get the truth out. Sorry, that this is ruining people's dreams, but look at it this way, would you rather be prepared with knowledge, or let it catch you off guard?

Fughe - excellent and true comment I fully agree with.

As I mailed before I've got 2 demo accounts:
Account 1 - I started with 100,000 $ initial deposit, running 4 pairs, medium risk 2%, as the developer recommended. After 13 days test period, my balance is only 66,000, equity is 34,000 (68% loss !!!!) and DD - 32,000$, I'm very close to Margin Call now, there is only 6% left...
Account 2 - 10,000 initial deposit, low risk. Balance is 15,000, equity 5,000 (50% loss !!) and DD -10,000 $. This happend after 9 days of testing period. Only 16% above the MArgin Call.
There is no way for this EA to recover as the equity dropped dramatically and there are no money to generate bunch of orders that eventually would help gaining some profits to shorten DD.

In my opinion, this EA is useless and very dangerous

hi All,

why all of our results are different from the one shown in myfxbook?
in this website, TOMsEA drowdown is only4.4%?

in my opinion, the ea here is not the same that is/was available for the public for a trial.
there is no other explantation for this difference in the results. ask yourself: how can that be, that this ea has only 4.4% drawdown but the ea's from all the other members have a lot more? and i mean a dd about 50%.
i have a live account with tom's ea with 8000 dollars real money, last night it opened one position with 0.9 lots!!! and with risk setting: 1 and only 3 pairs!

there is no way to get a good sleep with this ea.

I agree with 4X_MANAGER at least partially. There are 2 other possibilities. #1-it could be that price feed differences are causing it to take different trades (highly unlikely as it is not a high speed scalper). #2-However is running the account is manually intervening and just not telling everyone the entire truth. The second is HIGHLY likely due to the small losses you see taken every now and then throughout the test history. I say this because, with what we have seen of this system, a real full stoploss would loose a catastrophic amount of the account equity, but a manual intervention could easily cause a reasonable loosing day every once in a while.

I personally believe that it is probably the same EA, but they are manually intervening and not telling everyone....but....that is just my opinion from the observable information.

And it looks like we got lucky....huge spike up in the EURUSD just closed out the EURUSD positions.😀

Alright.....since the developer isn't being 100% up front....I decided to dig around a bit. I am looking at the code now and the risk is calculated as.....the initial position size is in direct proportion to the account size. Risk 1 = 10%, risk 2 = 20%, risk 3=30%. The calculation is account (equity * risk%)/10,000,000. So.....in my case, I am running risk of 1 with a $40,000 balance. 40,000 * 0.1=4,000 then....4,000/10,000,000=40,000 SO....the position size is $40,000 or 0.4 lot.

Now....At one point in time I had changed the risk to 2 on the GBPUSD, and then later changed it back to 1 because the risk was WAY to high. Since then, it has stayed at 0.5 lot, so....there must be a log file somewhere that it stores the last used position size and will not allow it to drop back down to a smaller starting position size.

Next up....time to edit the risk settings, and find that log file and alter those 'last known lot sizes', so that it will start using a resonable risk amount. I believe I am going to lower it to 1% risk. That should give it a much higher survivability.😇

   fughe posted:
   Alright.....since the developer isn't being 100% up front....I decided to dig around a bit. I am looking at the code now and the risk is calculated as.....the initial position size is in direct proportion to the account size. Risk 1 = 10%, risk 2 = 20%, risk 3=30%. The calculation is account (equity * risk%)/10,000,000. So.....in my case, I am running risk of 1 with a $40,000 balance. 40,000 * 0.1=4,000 then....4,000/10,000,000=40,000 SO....the position size is $40,000 or 0.4 lot.

Now....At one point in time I had changed the risk to 2 on the GBPUSD, and then later changed it back to 1 because the risk was WAY to high. Since then, it has stayed at 0.5 lot, so....there must be a log file somewhere that it stores the last used position size and will not allow it to drop back down to a smaller starting position size.

Next up....time to edit the risk settings, and find that log file and alter those 'last known lot sizes', so that it will start using a resonable risk amount. I believe I am going to lower it to 1% risk. That should give it a much higher survivability.😇

well done. but what is meaning of '4,000/10,000,000=40,000 '? in my case, I used small account of $1000 and $2000. for both accounts, initial lots size is 0.01(one micro lot).

until now, the maximum lot size is 0.09 in order to recover the loss at the EUR/USD down trend as you knew which just ended.

I asked their support may time about the Relation between Risk level and percentage, they never told. 10% risk is quite huge from risk management, not only for martingale strategy, even for other trend following strategy.

did you mined more? 10% for risk level 1 is for the initial trade? or for the maximum per trade, or maximum loss for all open trade?
for example, they talked about for everal time that the maximum stop is 600pips (personally I am it is true or not).

for the lot size, at the beginning, only one micro lot, and then increase gradually. but we did not the details. Tom should tell the details to the client, otherwise lots of refund will happen within 2 months. other way is please do the homework ourselves by open the code, especially DLL. we should not do that, but we pay very high, but could not get valuable product and support.

for drawdown, I think myfxbook and MT4 define it for closed trades only, not for open trades. for my trial account, drawdown is more than 20%, but from statement analysis of MT4, it is only 2.62% finally after all trades closed. please correct me.

I`m confused because I`m over trading an account that I use to test EAs. It is only $3,000 in size and I`m trading 4 pairs on risk level 1. The vendor recommends that to be trading at this level, an account be at least $6,500 in size.

I experienced draw down on this account of up to something like 20% in open trades. How is it that the account I'm over trading is experiencing such little draw down in comparison to fughe's tests? On risk level 2 on all four pairs, I assume I would have experienced up to 40% but I thought I was over trading the EA as it is already.

I am getting very very similar results to the vendor.

Hi all, I thought I add my few pence to the conversation.
I am new to automated trading and I would be grateful if some of you experts would give me your opinion. I am trying to propose a different viewpoint on the whole experience.
I am by no means expert and Tom's EA is the first and only EA that I have paid money for and used in any serious way so far. There were two main reasons for my decision; The fact that I could test it on a demo for a week or so free and the fact that I do not have to buy it but I can lease it for $97 a month (plus $24 for a VPS). I did not find anything similar during my research and I believe the leasing option shows the developer's committment to the product.

Like with my manual trading activities and anything else, I tried to approach this as a business. I have been scouring the net to check feedback on the EA and I have mainly found negative reports on Martingale systems and skeptical reviews. Nevertheless, both my demo and live accounts are up. I am monitoring all the live and demos on myfxbook which use Tom's EA like a hawk and I see they are all in profit. What I did not find, is anyone reviewing or commenting on EA's (not just Tom's) in a business like manner.

As well as trading, I am also in the hospitality business and I have managed and owned small businesses in that sector. I imagine someone would approach me with the possibility of leasing a small restaurant in the high street (an EA) for $121 a month all included (lease +VPS). The restaurant is fully staffed and runs without my intervention for the most part. My role as the owner is to provide UK£5,000 working capital, part of which will always be in stock like food, drinks etc. and part of it will remain in the bank. (money tied up in stock represents the EA's drawdown). Similar restaurants have been successful in the past while many others have gone bust. The projected profitability is around 10% a month (around UK£500), potentially doubling my initial stake in 12 months. I would jump at the opportunity.

Can I lose part of my money? Absolutely! If the restaurant is not performing and I decide to shut it down, I will lose all the money that is tied up in stock (drawdown) I just have to make sure that before I close it, my profits exceed the stock money :-) If no customers come, I will lose money!

Can I lose all my money? Absolutely! It is an investment like any others and it carries risk. If I keep buying food but do not sell it, I will go bust (drawdown will eat all the account.)

The above is very summary and superficial but it is a comparasing with real life rather than versus other EAs. I do not yet know what is truly available in the world of EAs.

Back to Tom's EA, I have a demo and live account (both are public, you can check them) and they have been running for a few weeks. In addition, I set up a demo with Tradency, running 6 pairs on risk 1. I was particularly interested in checking performance during the recent strong decline in the EURUSD. I would class the decline as unusual activity and therefore I was interested in seeing how the EA would cope. I do believe that, even with hedging on, strong trends could be the 'Achille's heel' of Tom's EA. At the worse point, my drawdon on the live account was near enough £600 on a 5k account. Around 12%. This is with 3 pairs running on level 2. This risk level is above the recommended one and I am aware of it. Therefore my tollerance for drawdown had to be adjusted and I decided I would accept up to 20% and will not intervene until 25%. I was therefore very pleased that it only reached 12%.

At the 12% point, my analysis of the market told me that we were very oversold and due a pullback. That duly happened and all was well. I have to say I was ready to intervene, however, I would not have closed any trades, I had a hedge ready to go in. That way I could have still monitored performance. All said and done, I now have £216 in profits and -£34 drawdown at the week end. Similar performances were observed by both the Demo and the Tradency demo.

My conclusions are as follow:

- The EA seems to capitalise on the fact that the markets are ranging 70% of the times and trending only 30.
- I believe that Tom's EA runs better with hedging on. I would not run it without hedging. This way, while the market is moving against you, the system is still trading profitably on the opposite side.
- I would not feel comfortable running this EA with less than 5k account and 400:1 leverage.
- I would only run it on a VPS or Tradency, as to make sure it is always running (I chose VPS as I live in the UK and use spreadbetting. (Tax Free), Noone as yet offers Mirrors with a spreadbetting account.)
- BY its very nature, the EA will constantly run a negative drawdon as it takes profits very early (cut profits short and let losses run....eehmm.. not normally my style, I have to say). It is a Martingale after all.
- Every email I sent to customer service was replied to in a satisfactory manner within 24 hours.
- Does Tom exists? Probably not, just like Robert Kiyosaky's 'Rich Dad'. The 'producers' are also been very cagey and secretive about the whole thing by not publishing open trades on myfxbook and not being very proactive with comments on this blog.
- This EA is not an ATM machine. I will keep running it but I believe I will have to take my responsibilities by assessing market conditions, understanding the EA behaviour and perhaps intervene occasionally either by manually closing, hedging or changing risk settings. Overall, I think it could have the ability to deliver the 8/10% a month. Similar measures should really be introduced in the program itself. (perhaps they are, who knows!)


It would be interesting if other users could post their opinions in running Tom's EA and how they run it.

As my demo account includes trades made with other EAs and I have not yet understood how to use magic numbers, I have filtered only the trades made by Tom's and posted results here. From now on, the demo will only run Tom's and I have a second Demo to test other EAs.

Hope the info is useful.

   craneliu posted:
   

   fughe posted:
   Alright.....since the developer isn't being 100% up front....I decided to dig around a bit. I am looking at the code now and the risk is calculated as.....the initial position size is in direct proportion to the account size. Risk 1 = 10%, risk 2 = 20%, risk 3=30%. The calculation is account (equity * risk%)/10,000,000. So.....in my case, I am running risk of 1 with a $40,000 balance. 40,000 * 0.1=4,000 then....4,000/10,000,000=40,000 SO....the position size is $40,000 or 0.4 lot.

Now....At one point in time I had changed the risk to 2 on the GBPUSD, and then later changed it back to 1 because the risk was WAY to high. Since then, it has stayed at 0.5 lot, so....there must be a log file somewhere that it stores the last used position size and will not allow it to drop back down to a smaller starting position size.

Next up....time to edit the risk settings, and find that log file and alter those 'last known lot sizes', so that it will start using a resonable risk amount. I believe I am going to lower it to 1% risk. That should give it a much higher survivability.😇

well done. but what is meaning of '4,000/10,000,000=40,000 '? in my case, I used small account of $1000 and $2000. for both accounts, initial lots size is 0.01(one micro lot).

until now, the maximum lot size is 0.09 in order to recover the loss at the EUR/USD down trend as you knew which just ended.

I asked their support may time about the Relation between Risk level and percentage, they never told. 10% risk is quite huge from risk management, not only for martingale strategy, even for other trend following strategy.

did you mined more? 10% for risk level 1 is for the initial trade? or for the maximum per trade, or maximum loss for all open trade?
for example, they talked about for everal time that the maximum stop is 600pips (personally I am it is true or not).

for the lot size, at the beginning, only one micro lot, and then increase gradually. but we did not the details. Tom should tell the details to the client, otherwise lots of refund will happen within 2 months. other way is please do the homework ourselves by open the code, especially DLL. we should not do that, but we pay very high, but could not get valuable product and support.

for drawdown, I think myfxbook and MT4 define it for closed trades only, not for open trades. for my trial account, drawdown is more than 20%, but from statement analysis of MT4, it is only 2.62% finally after all trades closed. please correct me.

#1- The statement refers to the amount of money being leveraged.
#2- !0% is for the LOT SIZE of the initial trade, and in the case of this system, it is actually the calculation used for the first 3 trades.

I have not spent enough time to find what the maximum stoploss is yet, but.....If I had allowed the EURJPY to continue, it would have either gotten stopped out at -600 pips.....or it would have open orders that were over 700 pips in the red....and still running. This is precisely why I say they are being evasive. i was told the stoploss was -400 pips, not I see others were told -600 pips. Is it -600 pips per position, or -600 pips based on the initial position???? We have no idea because they haven't said. Let's assume they mean -600 pips from the initial position.

To make this simple, I am going to use the actual trades placed in the EURUSD. Here are the trades:
#1- 0.4 lot @1.3779
#2- 0.4 lot @1.3718
#3- 0.4 lot @1.3667
#4- 1.30 lot @ 1.3612
#5- 2.50 lot @1.3558
#6- 3.80 lot @1.3495
SIDE NOTE: The market did make a pullback due to some sovereign eur buying and some other factors which closed out these positions for a $960 profit. But for the sake of this thought experiment, lets assume these same entry characterististics were applied to the big drop in September where it did not make any pullbacks big enough to trigger the TP before hitting the theoretical -600 pip stop.

So...we analyze these trades and you can see a grid for the position distribution of around 50-60 pips between positions. Position #6 is opened 284 pips below position #1. Now....in a normal martingale, it will continue to open positions according to the rules until it hits maximum stoploss. Before we do that....let's assume (since we already know it won't hit the TP no matter what) it doesn't open anymore positions before hitting the -600 pip stop. Here is what the stats would be at the stop(to keep it simple we assume 1 pip @ 0.1 lot is $1):
#1- 0.4 lots @ -600pips= -$2400
#2- 0.4 lots @ -539pips= -$2156
#3- 0.4 lots @ -488pips= -$1952
#4- 1.3 lots @ -433pips= -$5692
#5- 2.5 lots @ -379pips= -$9475
#6- 3.8 lots @ -316pips= -$12008
This leaves with a sum total loss of......-$33683. Remember this is one pair, traded minimum risk, on a $40,000 account...AND it is based on the real life possible entry characteristics of entering on or near the peak on Sept 8th 2011, with the bottom of the trend being Sept 12th 2011. Using 500:1 leverage, and $250/lot, the necessary margin is $2200. I am trying to make everyone understand risk here. They are NOT telling you the actual real life risk you are putting on your account. For this experiment, we ONLY used trades that my account had actually taken as a reference. This nearly blew out the account on a single pair giving it the benefit of the doubt. What does this scenario look like if the progression of adding positions continues? You will get a margin call before you account can hit the stoploss. If I use the current progression, lets assume the next position is 55 pips further down, and it will most likely be 6.3 lots. So position #7 would be 6.3 lots @ -261pips for a loss of -$16443. Position #8 would be 10.1 lots @ -206 pips for a loss of $20806. #9- 16.4 lots @ -151pips= -$24764. #10- 26.5lots @ -96pips= -$25440. Let's assume the EA stops here. That gives us a total theoretical loss of $121136. Now....let's factor in the hedging. Looks like the grid still remains between 50-60 pips, so....a 600 pip drop gives us 5 winning shorts, but lets call it 6 to be generous(even though it is impossible). 0.4 lot @ +50 pips= +$200, so 6 $200 wins adds $1200 to our equity. Oh yeah....and by the time the last losing position is opened, the margin requirement would be $17025.

At this point everyone should be seeing that we are in a margin call situation LONG before we get anywhere near the -600 pip stoploss. This is for ONE pair on MINIMUM risk. This happened in 3 days (Sept 10th and 11th were the weekend). I am not using a theoretical price action here, I used a real life, the-market-actually-did-this-in-the-real-world, event.

The author knows this. Remember people, forex is about making money. The author is trying to sell licenses. This EA is promoted to make about 10% a month. How many people do you think would be interested in it is he was marketing it at 1% per month? The risk is set dangerously high due to marketing purposes. You can't sell a 1%/month system for $2000.....or a monthly fee of $97. What is the chance you will make it beyond 60 days without your account crashing???? Nearly 100%. All they need is for it to survive beyond 60 days and the money is non-refundable. This system is being marketed to people that aren't good enough to be profitable in forex on their own. How many of those people are going to realize that they need to cut their losses short in under 3 days time? None. They are targeting new traders, and unsuccessful manual traders. I am not saying everyone using this EA is a newbie, because i see several people complaining about the minimum risk being high, and wanting lot size restrictions, etc. Those people know what is coming up and they are looking to protect their capital.

So, why am I saying all this? I am trying to educate the new traders. This system IS a profitable system. BUT...and this is the most important part.....you NEED to know when to cut your losses, and when to withdraw your profits. Heck, even good traders will sometimes not catch on that the market is not going to retrace before this would blow the account. Martingales are highly profitable, and as such, are even more dangerous.

This is true of any EA. The more profitable it is, the more dangerous it is. Fast Cash = Flash Crash. If you run this EA live, please make sure that you aren't fooling yourself. Understand that this EA can close your account. You must be willing to lose the entire account. If you aren't, then start by quitting using any EA that uses a martingale system and learn to trade manually first. When you can trade manually and succeed, you have the necessary skills to deal with an EA of this sort. Trading forex is not easy, unlike every marketer would have you believe. Otherwise, 90% of traders would not be losers. Most traders know just enough to lose their money slowly over an extended period. The newbies, know just enough to over-leverage and give their money away to the first stop hunter. You can ignore me if you prefer. I am just trying to help the same way I wish someone would have helped me when I first started.

So, that said, go ahead and ignore me. You will remember what i have said here when you suffer your first massive DD.

After reading a few of the posts here I have decided to put my Tom's EA results open for public viewing. Unlike Toms live account I've allowed viewing of open trades. Mine is a real account trading exactly the same pairs , starting account size and risk as this one we we commenting on. I find tradingshed's post to be exactly as I approach this EA. I have been tading manually for 10 years and with a handful of EAs recently.... I treat trading as a business and I can afford to take significant losses on this account. I have only been live with Tom's EA for 18 days, but my results are very close to that of Tom's live account and that of Tradingshed.

I have been monitoring my account closely and the biggest drawdown I have seen on OPEN TRADES is 12%. Personally I'm fine with this and like Tradingshed think that around 25% would be the point where I would consider a manual intervention.

Anyway.... Click on my username for the link to my account.

Thank you flopps for opening you account to public scrutiny. As I suspected, the risk is off. you are running on a $10,000 account. The position sizes in your account are 0.02 lots. That is the equivalent of running at a risk of 2%. I would venture to guess you are running on a risk setting of 2??

You see, I have never upgraded. I am still running the original version from before the official sale. If you were to run the version I have on my account currently, your beginning position size would be 10 times the size (or 0.2 lots instead of 0.02). This goes right along with my guess that some sneaky marketing was involved with this EA. As i had said in my previous post (buried in there somewhere), you can't sell an EA for $2000 (or $97/month) on a tiny gain every month. You get the people hooked with a modestly safe, 2 week trial, that uses incredibly high risk so it looks insanely profitable, and then after the hoopla is over, you switch it out with the real EA and drop the risk to a reasonable level so that your clients accounts can survive long enough to go beyond the money back guarantee.

Now....at this point, let me remind everyone following along....I have NEVER said this EA wasn't profitable. I have only said it is dangerous. How dangerous apparently depends on what version you are running. I think I am still running v1.87. The minimum risk of 1 is 10% in my version. This would also explain why, in 1 months time, my account had gained nearly 50%. As i demonstrated though, that risk level is unsustainable.

Now, that i have all this information, I very much do not trust them. i have seen no updates about changing the risk level ever....but they obviously have. Never forget, they only care about making money.

   fughe posted:
   Thank you flopps for opening you account to public scrutiny. As I suspected, the risk is off. you are running on a $10,000 account. The position sizes in your account are 0.02 lots. That is the equivalent of running at a risk of 2%. I would venture to guess you are running on a risk setting of 2??

You see, I have never upgraded. I am still running the original version from before the official sale. If you were to run the version I have on my account currently, your beginning position size would be 10 times the size (or 0.2 lots instead of 0.02). This goes right along with my guess that some sneaky marketing was involved with this EA. As i had said in my previous post (buried in there somewhere), you can't sell an EA for $2000 (or $97/month) on a tiny gain every month. You get the people hooked with a modestly safe, 2 week trial, that uses incredibly high risk so it looks insanely profitable, and then after the hoopla is over, you switch it out with the real EA and drop the risk to a reasonable level so that your clients accounts can survive long enough to go beyond the money back guarantee.

Now....at this point, let me remind everyone following along....I have NEVER said this EA wasn't profitable. I have only said it is dangerous. How dangerous apparently debpends on what version you are running. I think I am still running v1.87. The minimum risk of 1 is 10% in my version. This would also explain why, in 1 months time, my account had gained nearly 50%. As i demonstrated though, that risk level is unsustainable.

Now, that i have all this information, I very much do not trust them. i have seen no updates about changing the risk level ever....but they obviously have. Never forget, they only care about making money.

agree with you vendor has to give an option of choosing lots

   flopps posted:
   After reading a few of the posts here I have decided to put my Tom's EA results open for public viewing. Unlike Toms live account I've allowed viewing of open trades. Mine is a real account trading exactly the same pairs , starting account size and risk as this one we we commenting on. I find tradingshed's post to be exactly as I approach this EA. I have been tading manually for 10 years and with a handful of EAs recently.... I treat trading as a business and I can afford to take significant losses on this account. I have only been live with Tom's EA for 18 days, but my results are very close to that of Tom's live account and that of Tradingshed.

I have been monitoring my account closely and the biggest drawdown I have seen on OPEN TRADES is 12%. Personally I'm fine with this and like Tradingshed think that around 25% would be the point where I would consider a manual intervention.

Anyway.... Click on my username for the link to my account.

thanks for letting usseeaccount

flopps.. is the ver you are running TomsEA is 1.88 ?

Ok now I'm starting to understand..... I am running 1.88 and it appears that some of the other posters here are running a different version. Full disclosure, this is the only version I have used. This was the version that was provided to me for the 2 week trial and I have used it ever since. I paid for the full lifetime version of the EA based on the 2 week trial. A I said before, I look at this purely from a business point of view. Based on my trail and my live account, I can expect growth of 10-12% per month. That gives me a ROI of less then 2 months. I consider that a worthwhile risk assessment. That's not to say that I am naive, I realize that this EA can and will have drawdowns that might keep you staring at you computer for a while, but a total blowout of my account (with this risk setting and version)..... That a risk I can afford to take.

Fughe... Yes I am using risk setting 2. 4 pairs and a starting account of 10K, as recommended in members section of the Toms EA web site.