In most all cases, if it's too good to be true, it's because it usually is.
One big question is, why the managed account, when the site boasts such a high win ratio with backtests???
A "managed" account by it's very nature is contradictive to a backtest, because a backtest does not allow any user intervention, period, however it has been indicated by the vendor that certain pairs have to be disabled on certain days, with no specifics. That's a huge contradiction to them having backtests on their web site if that's the case.
The "managed" account is attaining a 75% win ratio (not bad), when their site boasts a 97% win ratio. Again, this is from backtests, no user intervention. So again, why the "managed" account? This doesn't make sense.
If the vendors claims on their web site were accurate, their test should be completely FPA controlled, with no user intervention required whatsoever, and should show a sustained 97% win ratio as they claim.
My main concern, is how unprofessional this vendor is, and abusive towards disgruntled customers. This vendor gets a huge F in customer relations. They might be doing ok with their current customer base, but any potential customer reading this forum is going to think twice about shelling out $600 for a program from a questionably arrogant, and abusive vendor, surrounded by overwhelming contradictions.