In fact, there's quite a bit of marketing blurb on the developer's website which explains some of the thinking of modern-day patternmeisters like Gann and Elliot, and subjects such as Phi and Fibonacci numbers are also discussed.
Elliot waves have actually been around for some time, but I've got to be honest and say that I've never been able to spot them when it matters the most, which is during their formation. I've only ever been able to pick them out on historical charts, and it's invariably a bit too late by that stage to make any money from them.
Despite all the fancy gobbledegook about Ermanometry and logarithmic spirals, PhiBase PRO appears to use much more basic chart patterns as part of its modus operandi. The website refers to trade entries being based upon things that I can understand - like double and triple tops and bottoms, support and resistance breaks and wedges - none of which has anything whatsoever, in my opinion, to do with any of the fancy names I referred to above. That said, I'm not sure that it matters precisely how the EA works, just so long as it does actually work and it's profitable.
Let's try and find out if that's the case with this EA ...
First and foremost, PhiBase PRO runs on the EURUSD symbol on the 1-hour chart timeframe and there are some strategy tests on the vendor's website which extend back nearly 5 years using some 99% modelling quality tick data. Those backtests certainly suggest that the PhiBase PRO EA is likely to be profitable, and that the EA is likely to return a win rate slightly in excess of 70%.
Although I haven't carried out any backtests of my own, I did conduct an analysis of the tick data backtests which show an average winning trade size of 46.3 pips against an average losing trade size of 78.7 pips. Whilst I don't know what spread was used in the backtests, the results show that the trade expectancy averages a whopping 11.1 pips, so the suggestion is that there is a bit of leeway when it comes to using PhiBase PRO with brokers with wider spreads or who like to slip a pip or two to help pay for their Christmas parties.
Those backtests also showed a total of 788 trades in 1,705 days of test, so this EA is only going to trade around 3 times each week. The backtests show its largest recorded stop-loss was in the region of 250 pips, so users are going to need to keep a stash of Valium to hand if they are of a nervous disposition. Similarly, the largest winning trade in the backtests was in excess of 700 pips, so it's important that traders resist any temptation to take manual control and close prematurely, otherwise they may find that the EA's overall long term performance is impaired. The EA sets a stop-loss, which it also trails, but I noticed that it also closes trades of its own accord, generally at the start of a new 1-hour price bar.
My only other observations at this stage are that the EA seems to be ECN-style broker compliant and it is also NFA hedging/FIFO compliant.
I've put PhiBase PRO straight into a forward test and it's my aim to analyse and review it in closer detail if and when it performs profitably in that forward test. My test is running on a $5k FXCC demo account which charges a 1.0 pip round turn commission per trade.
I'm assuming that the developer optimised his EA properly before release and that the default settings are optimum, so I've left the default settings as they are, with the exception that I've lowered the default variable lot size setting of 10.0 to a value of 3.0. The backtests at the default setting experienced far too high a drawdown for my personal comfort!
There do not appear to be any settings which limit either the maximum spread or slippage, although the EA does display a message on screen whilst in use which suggests that it only trades within the confines of a maximum allowed spread.
FXCC are a raw spread ECN broker, so slippage shouldn't even be an issue within my test.
As with all my EAs in forward test, I'm publishing the PhiBase PRO trades to MellyForex and its performance can be viewed in detail by clicking here.