|
7+ années
expérience
|
0
produits
|
0
versions de démo
|
|
0
offres d’emploi
|
0
signaux
|
0
les abonnés
|
Chartered Accountant with financial services and investment management background. Still serving on the board and as trustee of various investment companies and funds.
Louis Du Toit
produit partagé par le vendeur Maksim Neimerik
Signals Ravens Nest and Mockinjay are running on this.
Requirement for the EA use: the EA needs a low spread (recommended spread value is 2) and minimum slippage! The EA is a system that trades the signals generated by the following indicators: Bollinger Bands, Stochastic and Moving Average. The EA works from 00:05 to 08:00, terminal time. By default, all orders are closed at 23:59 (can be modified). Important!!! The EA operation start time should match the American trading session close time, while the operation end time should coincide with the
· 4
Louis Du Toit
Signal Watch
· 4
Louis Du Toit
2017.09.03
Aye, luckily I exited before it went bust, like seeing the writing on the wall!
Louis Du Toit
2017.09.06
Further to this post I have to add that the first week of September has not proven profitable following of DZ Rosamunde on Tickmill. In fact going from roughly 90%, this has dropped through to negative. I.e. I am making losses whilst signal account is positive. This is mainly due to trade exits being done in bulk when market conditions are highly volatile.
A friend of mine recently made the comment that one must be careful when traders start earning more signal revenue than trading revenue as the quality of trading drops. I truly hope this is not the case!
A friend of mine recently made the comment that one must be careful when traders start earning more signal revenue than trading revenue as the quality of trading drops. I truly hope this is not the case!
Louis Du Toit
AD AUDUSD
When this signal went bust I did imagine the enormous impact it would have. Responding to a comment left to me it made me go back to my records and an a comparison I did with MQL5 data of 22 May 2017. This should serve as a warning to everyone.
At that stage he had 250 subscribers to this signal and a gross of 335 subscribers over all his signals (others were Maters EURCHF, Master EC4, Master EC2). This placed him on the 3rd largest number of subscribers per provider on MQL5 for his 4 signals. In terms of number of funds, he was ranked no 2 with a total of USD922 000 for his 4 signals and for AD AUDUSD he had USD 599 000 subscribed to it. So one guy collectively lost the MQL5 community close to 1 million if not over, as he was gaining new subscribers and funds quite rapidly (8 subscribers per week and growing). Provider losses +/- 2000 vs MQL5 community losses +/- 1000000.
I am not sure what the solution should be as EA providers also provide signals. However in my option, there should be some correlation between the account size of the signal provider and the account sizes of subscribers and if that cant be matched, say at a 10% level, then all subscriber funds earned are to be deposited into the signal. This probably wont happen in my time, but I think an eloquent solution to a problem than needs to be solved.
When this signal went bust I did imagine the enormous impact it would have. Responding to a comment left to me it made me go back to my records and an a comparison I did with MQL5 data of 22 May 2017. This should serve as a warning to everyone.
At that stage he had 250 subscribers to this signal and a gross of 335 subscribers over all his signals (others were Maters EURCHF, Master EC4, Master EC2). This placed him on the 3rd largest number of subscribers per provider on MQL5 for his 4 signals. In terms of number of funds, he was ranked no 2 with a total of USD922 000 for his 4 signals and for AD AUDUSD he had USD 599 000 subscribed to it. So one guy collectively lost the MQL5 community close to 1 million if not over, as he was gaining new subscribers and funds quite rapidly (8 subscribers per week and growing). Provider losses +/- 2000 vs MQL5 community losses +/- 1000000.
I am not sure what the solution should be as EA providers also provide signals. However in my option, there should be some correlation between the account size of the signal provider and the account sizes of subscribers and if that cant be matched, say at a 10% level, then all subscriber funds earned are to be deposited into the signal. This probably wont happen in my time, but I think an eloquent solution to a problem than needs to be solved.
· 2
Cornelis Duiker
2017.08.12
I agree. We understand their is no guarantee, but the provider needs to be focused on making money for the subscribers - after all.. THAT... is why is getting paid.
I also agree that providers who start with $10 have an intention of going for the big returns, but they know their account might blow up so I will not risk my own money.
Here is the least that MQL could do....
I would suggest that after an signal crash (90% or more), MQL should process a refund (minus MQL fees of 20% - after all they are doing their job). This means any subscribers would be returned their 80%. It is just frankly WRONG... to allow the provider sit it out for 30 days, and collect all the subscription fees as they expire over the next 30 days. It is a small token, that will at at least return something to the subscriber that the provider does not deserve.
I also agree that providers who start with $10 have an intention of going for the big returns, but they know their account might blow up so I will not risk my own money.
Here is the least that MQL could do....
I would suggest that after an signal crash (90% or more), MQL should process a refund (minus MQL fees of 20% - after all they are doing their job). This means any subscribers would be returned their 80%. It is just frankly WRONG... to allow the provider sit it out for 30 days, and collect all the subscription fees as they expire over the next 30 days. It is a small token, that will at at least return something to the subscriber that the provider does not deserve.
Louis Du Toit
VISTA: Fake
Actual trades in no ways match the signal provider. My account opened 20 trades compared to the providers 6 trades. All trades for the provider ended positive. I lost 258 USD. Luckily the signal is closed for subscription now.
https://www.mql5.com/en/signals/296748#!tab=history
Actual trades in no ways match the signal provider. My account opened 20 trades compared to the providers 6 trades. All trades for the provider ended positive. I lost 258 USD. Luckily the signal is closed for subscription now.
https://www.mql5.com/en/signals/296748#!tab=history
· 2
Yang May Leong
2017.08.01
strange indeed if u r using mql vps perhaps u could send journal log to mql service desk. It might be some migration issues or whatever. I was only aware that u tick the copy parameters on local pc and never on mql vps and u migrate by selecting signal only. I dont use mql vps its too invasive ady. I hv never encountered such an issue also, unless u selected SL/TP. But u didnt, there were no sl/tp on your trades. If your trade hit sl/tp of coz mt4 close it, thats the perfect logic, but if provider has yet to hit sl/tp due to slippage/price diff, mql when synch will re-open the trade again, but i really failed to c how trades w/o sl and tp can be replicated so many different times and trades open/close at different times as well. I am assuming that u did tally back to provider's history thats why u noticed this difference. U posted since last mth and signal has been cancelled probably due to SO, so i am not sure whether u still keep that mt4 or its journal log. If so u can always still lodge a ticket to mql
Yang May Leong
2017.08.01
BTW i was out 2 wks subs (for AUD sig) and thrown, in jun, and i ady saw the erratic behavior of the EA. U can kiss goodbye to subs fees, he wont quit he may just sit it out and dont trade to collect fees even. Thats the kinda of person he is. If he is sincere he should at least apologise and cancel signal so that mql auto refund and stop the nonsense of starting new signal based on same shxxx EA
Louis Du Toit
2017.08.04
Thank you for the comment on Vista. A ticket was in fact lodged, and the guy quickly went from signal not available for subscription to no signal and this was not because of a DD. This might not have been my doing as there were some suspicions about his signal just being a copy of another one. Best bet is probably colluded with a broker to fake his results.
On AD AUDUSD, yes all his similar signals have now been blown even moderate and low risk ones. I went back to a 22 May download of mine. At that stage he had 250 subscribers to this signal and a gross of 335 subscribers over all his signals. This placed him on the 3rd largest number of subcribers on MQL5 for his 4 signals. In terms of number of funds, he was ranked no 2 with a total of USD922 000 for his 4 signals and for AD he had USD 599 000 subscribed to it. So one guy collectively lost the MQL5 community close to 1 million if not over, as he was gaining new subscribers and funds quite rapidly.
On AD AUDUSD, yes all his similar signals have now been blown even moderate and low risk ones. I went back to a 22 May download of mine. At that stage he had 250 subscribers to this signal and a gross of 335 subscribers over all his signals. This placed him on the 3rd largest number of subcribers on MQL5 for his 4 signals. In terms of number of funds, he was ranked no 2 with a total of USD922 000 for his 4 signals and for AD he had USD 599 000 subscribed to it. So one guy collectively lost the MQL5 community close to 1 million if not over, as he was gaining new subscribers and funds quite rapidly.
Louis Du Toit
Yeah! I did my first review. I am testing a number of products and have some good reviews in store. Typically I will only do a review after two to three months.
https://www.mql5.com/en/market/product/19411#!tab=reviews
This is a warning not to even try the Dashboard Babon Scalping System.
https://www.mql5.com/en/market/product/19411#!tab=reviews
This is a warning not to even try the Dashboard Babon Scalping System.
· 3