Blog Item

FxPromax and Steady Winner EAs - Expert Advisors in Forward Test

FxPromaxIt was only a few weeks ago in the MellyForex July Update, that I was bemoaning the lack of EAs that had appeared on the market recently which I felt would be suitable for testing. Since then, I don't seem to have stopped following up users' various recommendations of EAs to test, and I'm now able to report that I've put a couple more Expert Advisors into forward test over the last few days.

The first of those EAs is called FxPromax and, if it weren't for a user's request, I may never have even noticed this Expert Advisor at all. In truth, FxPromax probably isn't the type of EA that would ordinarily interest me, as it's not only a scalping robot with a very high risk/reward ratio, but the developer's website states that it is "Equipped with automated loss-recovery algorithm!"

Oh dear. In MellyForexLand, that only means one thing. Martingale!

The obvious question, therefore, is why have I even bothered to give this EA the time of day?

Well, the answer is simply that my preliminary tests do suggest that, unlike many Martingale-style EAs, FxPromax is profitable in terms of the pips that it wins and, also, that it is profitable over an 11 year backtest. Fortunately, the Martingale element of the EA is also optional, so I decided to investigate FxPromax some more to try to find out just how close this EA sits to that very fine line which can divide success and failure in trading.

To illustrate my point here, the developer's website suggests that FxPromax enjoys a winning trade success rate of over 95%. I did a few quick sums, and figured that this gives an average profit expectation of 2.55 pips per trade. If, however, that success rate were to drop by a couple of percentage points to 93%, then FxPromax would merely breakeven. Anything less than 93%, and FxPromax will lose money!

The probability of the EA attaining such a high win rate is a subject that I intend to look at in closer detail within my full review, and spread and slippage are most probably going to be important influential factors in the performance of the EA.

With performance in mind, I've once more chosen to use an FXCC ECN account for my forward tests, because of the fact that they quote raw spreads which can be as a tight as 0.1 pip.

FXCC also charge a 1.0 pip round trip commission on each trade, so I've compensated for this by increasing the TP of each trade by 1.0 pip and reducing the SL by the same amount.

I've set the Martingale loss-recovery option of the EA to false, until I've analysed the EA in greater detail for my full review.

The EA doesn't seem to feature a maximum spread parameter, although it does include a slippage parameter which I have to set to zero so as not to allow any slippage whatsoever. The EA runs on the 1-minute EURUSD chart, and I've left the other settings at their default levels, which includes a risk of 5% per trade.

FxPromax's trades are being published to MellyForex, and the EA's performance can be monitored by clicking here.

Steady Winner EA The second Expert Advisor that I've put into forward test is the Steady Winner EA which has been around for a while, although it has recently been updated to version 5 which includes a number of improvements.

Again, it was on the suggestion of a MellyForex user that I contacted the Steady Winner developers to ask for a review copy, and they were more than happy to oblige.

Steady Winner is interesting because it uses what I feel can only be described as an ANTI-Martingale system. I'm sure most readers will be familiar by now with the Martingale approach which increases the next trade size after a losing trade. The specific intention is to recover the earlier loss in the quickest way possible. Well Steady Winner does precisely the opposite to this, and it actually DECREASES the next trade size after a losing trade (to the smallest size allowed by your broker, if needs be).

To understand a little more of the logic behind this approach, perhaps I should firstly explain that Steady Winner works by following trends. If the market trends well, then Steady Winner will also perform well and pick up lots of pips as the trend develops.

Unfortunately, however, trends don't last forever, and Steady Winner is nearly always going to incur a loss trade at the end of a trend. Once the next trend develops, Steady Winner will start to make money again, but the trend may take a little while to establish as the bulls and bears fight it out to see who will take control the market. During this pitched battle, the likelihood of Steady Winner incurring another loss trade is increased, so the EA takes smaller sized trades until the direction becomes clear once more and it can then start to trade its normal lot sizes again.

The developers have obviously worked hard to identify those periods during which they believe the worst case drawdowns are likely to occur, and the aim is to restrict the drawdowns at those times which can leave traders unsettled and nervous.

Within my review, I intend to look at the anti-Martingale approach in closer detail and I'll be able to analyse its effectiveness quite easily.
For now though, I have once more opted to use an FXCC ECN account for my forward testing, and I've put a copy of the Steady Winner EA into a $5k demo account.

Steady Winner runs on a 1-hour EURUSD chart, and I'm using the EA's default settings with the exception of the risk parameter, which I've set to risk no more than 3.5% of my account balance on any one trade.

In the event of a losing trade, the following trade will be at a reduced size of 0.1 lot.

Again, you are welcome to monitor Steady Winner's performance and detailed trades at MellyForex by clicking here.

Discussion (0 comments)

Be the first to leave a comment!

Add a Comment

;-) :-) :-D :-( :-o :-O B-) :oops: :-[] :-P

To prevent automated Bots form spamming, please enter the text you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
»