The signal monitoring system has a serious flaw/problem!
I dont see any problem with it..
It just might have been designed a little bit different from what you expect from it.
I have contacted Service Desk about a serious flaw/problem of the signal monitoring system here in MQL5.com.
If a signal provider deposit some money, open a bunch of positions, withdraw the money (that previously deposited) and then close the positions, the profit (or loss) will be recorded taking in mind the end balance and not the starting balance before the deposit.
I will give an example, because this applies to a trick some signal providers do in order to recover some heavy losses, or record a huge profit.
1. The signal has a balance of $30 and then the signal provider deposits $300 and opens a buch of positions with the backing and leverage of the total $330.
2. The market goes in favour of the signal provider, so the earlier deposited $300 are withdrawn and after that the open positions are closed with a profit.
3. If the profit is $300, the MQL5 system doesn't record it as a 90% profit for the $330 balance in the time the positions were opened, but as a 900% !!! profit, the time the positions were closed and the balance was back at $30 !!!
So you see a tactic that is used very often by some signal providers in order to trick subscribers and the whole MQL5 signal system.
Of course the whole story above, applies to a specific top signal that did the described act only yesterday, but I don't mention the signal here, because it will be removed.
I have contacted Service Desk about this problem but they fail to understand my point.
I have seen the signal also. Has 2 year history Had around 500 subscribers and hit a DD of 90% for August and hence a lot of people got wiped out. His growth dropped from 815% to 615%.
He did what is described above. Deposit $300 so his balance goes from $40 to $340, opens 1.5 lot . While the open positions are wining 300usd, he withdraws 300usd , so he can later on close the 300usd profit on an 30usd balance and record profit of 900%.
And suddenly you see his growth return back to 800% as if nothing.
Simple as that to misslead copiers.
I dont see any problem with it..
It just might have been designed a little bit different from what you expect from it.
So its OK Marco to destroy all subscribers accounts with a 90% loss, then record a 90% (not 900%) profit and this month's growth to be at break even for the signal, when subscriber's accounts are in -80% loss?
A subscriber with a $1000 capital, went to $100 with the 90% loss and then to $200 with the 90% (not 900%) profit, so its still at -80%, when the signal's growth for August its -3,67% now as we speak !!!
Am I the only one here that sees this huge scam!!!
I have seen the signal also. Has 2 year history Had around 500 subscribers and hit a DD of 90% for August and hence a lot of people got wiped out. His growth dropped from 815% to 615%.
He did what is described above. Deposit $300 so his balance goes from $40 to $340, opens 1.5 lot . While the open positions are wining 300usd, he withdraws 300usd , so he can later on close the 300usd profit on an 30usd balance and record profit of 900%.
And suddenly you see his growth return back to 800% as if nothing.
Simple as that to misslead copiers.
Thank you Michalis for your positive view on this serious matter!
I think that more people should contact Service Desk about this, its time to stop such tricks from happening.
So its OK Marco to destroy all subscribers accounts with a 90% loss, then record a 90% (not 900%) profit and this month's growth to be at break even for the signal, when subscriber's accounts are in -80% loss?
A subscriber with a $1000 capital, went to $100 with the 90% loss and then to $200 with the 90% (not 900%) profit, so its still at -80%, when the signal's growth for August its -3,67% now as we speak !!!
Am I the only one here that sees this huge scam!!!
I'm not saying anything about something being OK or not.
I'm just saying that it could be designed in a different way then you would expect.
And if that is true well then it's only logical to see it behave differently then what you would expect also.
Maybe you need to look even deeper and beyond.I'm not saying anything about something being OK or not.
I'm just saying that it could be designed in a different way then you would expect.
And if that is true well then it's only logical to see it behave differently then what you would expect also.
Maybe you need to look even deeper and beyond.I am looking it from the subsciber's view Marco.
The subscriber is -80% down at this moment for August and the signal has a -3,67% growth value recorded.
This is a serious problem and misleads MQL5 members !!!
Anyone can see that.
I think it was just a bad trade, or a few bad trades, and anyone who subscribed to follow, suffered from it.
This is the risk you accept when you subscribe to the service.
It happens all the time.
I think it was just a bad trade, or a few bad trades, and anyone who subscribed to follow, suffered from it.
This is the risk you accept when you subscribe to the service.
It happens all the time.
I agree, but it should recorded by MQL5 as it happened and not looking better that it happened.
I agree, but it should recorded by MQL5 as it happened and not looking better that it happened.
I agree. MQL5 needs to be aware of this and should take steps to prevent such misrepresentation in future. If they don't, ALL signal services are likely to fall under suspicion.
There are two biggest flaws in MQL5 signal system.
1st, showing the trade performance before the signal is published. If you are long enough with mt4 then you should know how easy to manufacture the historical trade record. Hence, trade record without a realtime monitoring from any third party cannot be trusted at all.
2nd, the calculation of growth/drawdown is completely wrong because it allow signal provider to manipulate the growth/drawdown by rapid deposit/withdrawal. MQ must either prohibiting signal provider to deposit/withdrawal whenever there is an opening position or change the way they do the calculation.
I believe these issues had been raised many time but they never bother to fix it. Why fixed it if it ain't broken (to them)?
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
I have contacted Service Desk about a serious flaw/problem of the signal monitoring system here in MQL5.com.
If a signal provider deposit some money, open a bunch of positions, withdraw the money (that previously deposited) and then close the positions, the profit (or loss) will be recorded taking in mind the end balance and not the starting balance before the deposit.
I will give an example, because this applies to a trick some signal providers do in order to recover some heavy losses, or record a huge profit.
1. The signal has a balance of $30 and then the signal provider deposits $300 and opens a buch of positions with the backing and leverage of the total $330.
2. The market goes in favour of the signal provider, so the earlier deposited $300 are withdrawn and after that the open positions are closed with a profit.
3. If the profit is $300, the MQL5 system doesn't record it as a 90% profit for the $330 balance in the time the positions were opened, but as a 900% !!! profit, the time the positions were closed and the balance was back at $30 !!!
So you see a tactic that is used very often by some signal providers in order to trick subscribers and the whole MQL5 signal system.
Of course the whole story above, applies to a specific top signal that did the described act only yesterday, but I don't mention the signal here, because it will be removed.
I have contacted Service Desk about this problem but they fail to understand my point.