Discuss FAPTurbo.com (and FAPTurbo2.com and FAPTurbo3.com)

[Kayla]

I don't know about you guys, but running for 15+ weeks and only producing 3%? WTF?

If there are people out there that like these kinds of returns then go with your local bank! LOL

What's funnier is the other day I did see a bank sign by where I live. The headline was "Time to get a fatter wallet! with 3.33%APR" LOL that's hilarious to me.

 

[Rodders]

Hi Ken

I take your point about Money Management if the FAPT account is one of many. However, I've always treated each account as a discrete, in money management terms. I realise that makes me more conservative than it would be if I considered total equity in all accounts rather than in the account in question, when calculating lot sizes. However, the opposite would lead me to taking out trade sizes in small trial accounts that would be totally inappropriate, as my main account is quite large in comparison. Furthermore, we are discussing FAPT's built-in money management, which of course has no idea what equity one might trade in other accounts. I'm still surprised that FAPT (and FPA) recommend such high account % to lose on a single trade. As FAPT trades several pairs and may make several trades per night (unsupervised), one runs the risk of waking to find horrendous losses. Take my own trial account for example. 177PIPs lost in one night. These were at an average trade size of .38 lots. If I'd have used the settings recommended, I think the average trade size would have been something like 2.0 lots. So the loss would have been approx -US$3,540 on an account that was about $14K. That is -25% of the account in one trading session. That is reckless.

On a happier note, I have FAPT running in two demo trail accounts. One is using default settings, and the other the FPA test settings. Both have showed a profit for the last couple of nights, ending my long losing streak.

I did see a post on FAPT's own forum (who have, interestingly, not allowed me to post a thread similar to this discussion), suggesting that the losses with v47 (I am not alone) are due to reduced S/L default settings with this version, which have the effect of stopping a bad trade out before it can recover. I can only hope that FAPT will have back tested the S/L settings before changing the defaults, but it is an interesting theory, and might explain why both the profitability and win:loss ratios have deteriorated with this version. I shall have to go back and manually analyse the stopped out trades to see if a wider stop would have allowed them to recover or just have resulted in larger losses. I'll let you know what I find.

 

[SimonW]

fapturbo settings

Hi,
I am new to this forum but am running fapturbo, but not with the same success as shown in the FPA demo test.

Does anyone know what settings they are using on this test? It is mentioned that they were sent a custom file of settings from Fapturbo which were not the default that comes with the program.

My experience with Fapturbo is that since doing the upgrade to version 47, i have consistently lost. Whereas on the previous version it was doing very nicely thank you.

Is anyone who is experiencing success with Fapturbo able to share their settings?

Thank you

 

[FapturboSupport]

Is anyone who is experiencing success with Fapturbo able to share their settings?

We sent settings developed by DonnaForex. There is no secret here. They work great on the brokers with low spreads. That has nothing to do with version differences. Market conditions and spreads change but not the core algorithm.

 

[Rick B]

So, what's the verdict?

So, is the general consensus that v.47 is NOT a threat? Just S/L settings? How often are they gonna decide to release a "better" version? - - I think that's the real question. At the end of the day, you do have to wonder if you actually spend any less time on an EA than you would just manually trading!

 

[Ken Long]

I dont think your going to find any kind of accurate consensus here. Too many people like to find something to blame when they take a large loss, when the real blame lies within the market and their own risk managment.

V 47 is supposedly no different internaly than any of the previous versions. What is different and continually changes is the market. Most losses here are from the market breaking out while FAPT is still holding trades. This will always be a problem.

Changing the stop loss on the eurgbp doesnt seem to have helped. The eurgbp now just takes more losses than before. Other than reworking the basic algorithim and trading strategy for better accuracy, which may be an option from the developers side, the only thing we can really do is to try to monitor the trades and the market conditions for potential problems. And yes, this can be a big pain in the A and take a lot of time. I would rather monitor my own trades and work on my own trading problems than anyone elses robot.

 

[Rick B]

I dont think your going to find any kind of accurate consensus here. Too many people like to find something to blame when they take a large loss, when the real blame lies within the market and their own risk managment.

V 47 is supposedly no different internaly than any of the previous versions. What is different and continually changes is the market. Most losses here are from the market breaking out while FAPT is still holding trades. This will always be a problem.

Changing the stop loss on the eurgbp doesnt seem to have helped. The eurgbp now just takes more losses than before. Other than reworking the basic algorithim and trading strategy for better accuracy, which may be an option from the developers side, the only thing we can really do is to try to monitor the trades and the market conditions for potential problems. And yes, this can be a big pain in the A and take a lot of time. I would rather monitor my own trades and work on my own trading problems than anyone elses robot.

Well said! Thanks for being a voice of reason.

 

[Rodders]

S/L Not the Problem?

Well, I looked back at the bigger losing trades. I don't believe that the S/L settings have changed with v47; just that the settings have now become a user option, rather than just being coded in.

While some of the trades would have eventually become profitable with a larger S/L, others would just have stopped out at an even greater loss; overall, no gain with a greater S/L.

With this small number of trades, it is not conclusive to determine the ideal S/L settings; a couple of years at least of back-testing would be required; presumably what the FAPT Team have already done.

Sadly, my losing streak has returned. I now have two version running on demo accounts; one with the default settings on an FXCBS account. This is producing an overall loss; some days profitable, wiped out by the larger losses. As it is an ECN broker, the spreads are very low and consequently there are very many more trades per session than most FAPT users experience. I have a second version running; also an ECN account, but this time with ATC Brokers. This has the same settings as the FPA long-term test. Strangely, there are significantly fewer trades per day, although the spreads on the two demo accounts seem very similar if not identical. The account has not made the same losses as the other; a modest profit in fact. However, given small return, against the the potential for large losses, I cannot justify placing this on a live test account.

I wish I knew what was causing these discrepancies; some people reporting wild profits, other losses, most (presumably) using the same settings, known differences between brokers. All a bit random for me; certainly for an EA that I was considering for unsupervised overnight trading. I don't quite see the point of an EA that I have to monitor. Better off trading manually. Its a bit like an automatic washing machine where you have to manually add the soap, rinse and spin in case it ruins your clothes!:unhappy:

 

[ernest8fingers]

I thought so

Well, I looked back at the bigger losing trades. I don't believe that the S/L settings have changed with v47; just that the settings have now become a user option, rather than just being coded in.

While some of the trades would have eventually become profitable with a larger S/L, others would just have stopped out at an even greater loss; overall, no gain with a greater S/L.

With this small number of trades, it is not conclusive to determine the ideal S/L settings; a couple of years at least of back-testing would be required; presumably what the FAPT Team have already done.

Sadly, my losing streak has returned. I now have two version running on demo accounts; one with the default settings on an FXCBS account. This is producing an overall loss; some days profitable, wiped out by the larger losses. As it is an ECN broker, the spreads are very low and consequently there are very many more trades per session than most FAPT users experience. I have a second version running; also an ECN account, but this time with ATC Brokers. This has the same settings as the FPA long-term test. Strangely, there are significantly fewer trades per day, although the spreads on the two demo accounts seem very similar if not identical. The account has not made the same losses as the other; a modest profit in fact. However, given small return, against the the potential for large losses, I cannot justify placing this on a live test account.

I wish I knew what was causing these discrepancies; some people reporting wild profits, other losses, most (presumably) using the same settings, known differences between brokers. All a bit random for me; certainly for an EA that I was considering for unsupervised overnight trading. I don't quite see the point of an EA that I have to monitor. Better off trading manually. Its a bit like an automatic washing machine where you have to manually add the soap, rinse and spin in case it ruins your clothes!:unhappy:

This problem(win some - lose more) is feature almost all EAs share. Maybe a more conservative approach is needed. I dont use FAPTurbo but I do use an EA. I have a AutoProfitLock control that moves your Stoploss past OrderOpenPrice.This control is adjustable(locks in profit at some preset # of pips). Though my trade might not hit my TP target, this EA almost never loses a trade because of this one control. Instead, it produces small pip wins or hits mt TP target(25 pips usually).This EA makes 5-10 trades a week on average. Its not a "HolyGrail" but has enough filters and settings that actually perform as advertised. I wonder, with all those settings I see on FAPTurbo,whats actually going on inside the program. Having said all these words,I will admit, I still dont trust anything Forex and wont let this EA run wild(unsupervised). I let EA pick entries and usually manually close trades.

 

[Ken Long]

The user adjustable features of v 47 have been available for a while in the Pro versions, all they have done now is to combine both versions into one.

The default stop on the eurgbp was changed from 112 to 35, and this seems to be producing more frequent stop outs. I may be totaly wrong here, I havent done my homework, it may just be that it would have just taken the larger loss if it wasnt changed, but there has definately been an increase in loss frequency on the eurgbp. This used to be the prefered trading pair but I dont see it any more. In fact this used to be a great EA, but I havent seen those results in a while.

I'm running out of good things to say about this EA. It was innovative when it first came out, it opened my eyes to the meaning of scalping as a range trading strategy, and its trading hours were very compatable with my own schedule, but I've never liked the pairs it trades, and at this point I'd have to fall back on an old market axiom. When something becomes known to everyone, and used by so many, it generally ceases to work the same. The marketplace is organic, not mechanical, it adapts to every change its faced with, and this is just anouther parasite trying to feed off the market.

Not to say that this EA can not work well. It has great streaks of profitability, but it hasnt been holding on to its profits very well lately. Trading with backwards risk/reward ratios is difficult at the best. Sooner or later you have to pay the price.