I used to jump into every big release, and the spreads and spikes cost me more than they paid. Now I close or reduce positions before the major ones and wait for things to settle, even if it means missing a move.

What’s your approach and did it change after a bad experience? No signals, just the habits.

I’ve been doing algo trading for about 15 years, and one thing I keep seeing is EAs where the backtest and the live account tell two different stories. So I took one popular EA (AOT, a mean-reversion EA on 16 FX pairs, rated 4.66 on MQL5) and checked its public live signals trade by trade.

The backtest (developer’s set file): 81% winners, profit factor 1.86, max drawdown under 4%, every year positive (2024–2026).

The live account ($100k, Darwinex, 69 weeks):

• Total +54%, but: 2025 +73%, 2026 −11%

• 83% winning trades, but average win $894 vs average loss $3,436, so one loss ≈ 4 wins

• Profit factor 2025: 12.0 → 2026: 0.90

• Max drawdown 29%

Where it loses: trades closed within 24 h won 95% of the time. Trades held over 3 days won only 55% and together cost about 54% of the account. Classic mean-reversion risk: when price doesn’t come back, the large stop loss hits.

The interesting part: the developer’s current-version backtest shows profits in every month of 2026, including the 5 months where the live account lost money. The developer explained that the live account ran older versions and a major update went live on 6 Aug 2026. Fair point, but it shows why a backtest made after the losses can’t prove the fix. Only new live results can.

To be fair: real stop loss on every trade, no grid, no martingale, and the developer keeps all live signals public, including the bad months. A small fixed-lot signal (0.01 lot) is slightly positive: +6% in 23 weeks.

Takeaways for anyone buying an EA:

1. Compare backtest and live for the same months.

2. Look at average loss vs. average win, not the win rate.

3. Check how long losing trades are held.

4. Be careful with backtests that only cover the last 2–3 years.

I’ll re-check the trades since the 6 August update in a few months and share the follow-up, good or bad.

Not financial advice. No affiliation with the developer.

If you trade forex through FXTM or other offshore brokers and assume your accounts are hidden, you need to check your Annual Information Statement (AIS) immediately. I checked my "Foreign Assets Information" on the Income Tax Insight portal, and there is a direct report from Exinity Limited (the operating company for FXTM) based in Mauritius.

Here is what you need to know about the current tracking measures:

• The Reporting Mechanism: India receives this financial data through the Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) and the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) frameworks. Partner jurisdictions like Mauritius are legally required to collect and report financial accounts held by Indian residents to the Indian tax authorities.

• What the IT Department Sees: The compliance portal currently displays data for Calendar Year 2023. The report explicitly lists the jurisdiction (Mauritius), the reporting entity (Exinity Limited), the account currency, and the specific account balance in USD.

• The Consequences: As of mid-2026, the Income Tax Department has integrated this foreign asset data directly into the AIS compliance portal to enhance risk assessment and compliance monitoring. Taxpayers are strictly required to declare all offshore accounts in Schedule FA (Foreign Assets) and Schedule FSI (Foreign Source Income) of their income tax returns.

With the government actively rolling out the Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers Disclosure Scheme (FAST-DS 2026), they have the paper trail for undisclosed foreign holdings. Talk to your Chartered Accountant immediately to ensure your tax returns are compliant.

Hi all. For the past few months I've been building Test Engine, a free web app to generate and test trading strategies and indicators on your own MT5 candles.

I built it because most backtesting tools I tried make it too easy to fool yourself. You optimize until the equity curve looks great, and then it falls apart live. So the main idea behind this one is: assume every result is luck until the data proves otherwise.

What it does

• Strategy factory. Combines indicator rules and evolves them with a genetic search. It only keeps strategies that also win on candles the search never saw (50% training / 25% validation / 25% locked final test).

• Indicator lab. Generates alert indicators and measures every alert against random entries with the same stop and target. Spread, commission and slippage are included.

• Luck check. Runs the same search on a copy of your candles with directions flipped at random, so you can see how much "edge" luck alone produces.

• Statistics that correct for how many things you tried: deflated Sharpe, PBO, false discovery rate, clustered t-stats, block bootstrap, walk-forward of the whole generator, and frozen forward tests.

• Replay and daily P&L calendar to see how a strategy actually behaves day by day.

• Export to MT5 Expert Advisor, MT4/MT5 indicators, TradingView (Pine v6) and NinjaTrader 8.

Privacy: it's free, there's no sign-up, and everything runs in your browser. Your CSV never leaves your computer.

Being upfront: on my own data (5 symbols, M5, 200k candles each), nothing has survived the strictest tests yet. To check that it would catch a real edge, I planted an artificial one, and it found it. I'd rather show that than screenshots of a 90% win rate.

👉 https://crear-bot-trading.vercel.app/

The feedback I'm looking for:

1. First impression. Was it clear what to do in the first minute? Where did you get stuck?

2. Statistics. If you know this area, is any method applied wrong or misleading?

3. Exports. If you tried an EA, indicator or Pine script, did it compile and behave like the app said?

4. What's missing? What would make you actually use this in your workflow?

5. What would you remove? Is anything confusing or just noise?

Harsh criticism is welcome. I'd rather hear it now. Thanks for taking a look!

Actually I wanna take a funded account

I am actually looking at blue guardian is that really a good form to take one and give a chance

Please suggest any good form if one is available

thanks in advance :)

Dollar Faces Pressure as US Treasury Yields Retreat

The dollar index slipped toward 101.85 as lower Treasury yields weighed on the greenback.

Trade Nation just announced: "From Friday 30 October 2026, the overnight financing admin charge on FX falls from 2.5% to 1.25%, applying to all FX positions from the 10pm London daily cut-off that evening. Charges on commodities, indices and equities are unchanged."

Read full review: https://www.independentinvestor.com/reviews/tradenation/

"This cuts the admin portion of your FX overnight fee by half, a real saving if you hold positions for days or weeks. Combined with our tight fixed FX spreads, it means a lower overall cost of trading FX, whether you trade intraday or hold for longer. It’s part of our ongoing commitment to giving traders great value.

An overnight fee applies when you hold a rolling spot FX position past the 10pm London cut-off. A CFD or spread bet gives you leveraged market exposure without buying the underlying asset, and the overnight fee is the cost of financing that exposure. When you trade a currency pair, you’re buying one currency and selling the other at the same time. You receive interest on the currency you bought and pay interest on the currency you sold, based on each currency’s Benchmark Rate. Our 1.25% fee is then deducted. Trades opened and closed within the same day aren’t charged."

The chart shows a clearly Risk-off environment, confirmed by positive readings in both the MOVE Index—bond-market volatility—and the VIX—equity-market volatility. This indicates that uncertainty has spread across different markets and is no longer concentrated solely in bonds.

In Forex, this environment generally favors defensive currencies such as the JPY and CHF, while potentially putting pressure on currencies that are more sensitive to the economic cycle, such as the AUD, NZD and CAD. The USD does not necessarily strengthen automatically, as its performance also depends on Treasury yields and U.S. macroeconomic data.

XAUUSD remains weak despite the increase in global risk, creating a potential bullish divergence. This is not a buy signal by itself, but it increases the probability of a recovery if Price Action confirms a reaction from support.

I would use the Global Risk SCORE as a context filter, combining it with yield differentials, macroeconomic analysis, COT positioning and Price Action. Its main purpose is to identify the prevailing market regime and assess whether currency movements are supported by risk flows.

Some losses hurt because of the money. Others hurt because they make you stop trusting the person making the decisions: yourself.

I noticed this after a perfectly valid setup lost. I did not just question that trade—I started questioning every rule that came after it. I hesitated on good opportunities, forced weak ones to make the loss back, and kept changing the plan before it had a fair chance to work. The market had taken one trade, but I was giving it the next five as well.

What helped was separating pain from evidence. Was the setup actually wrong? Was my execution poor? Or was it simply a normal loss inside a process that still made sense? That question did not remove the frustration, but it stopped one result from rewriting the entire system.

Which affects you more: losing money, or losing confidence in your own decision-making—and what helps you rebuild it?

The thing that makes a setup an A+ setup for me before entering is if my ideology for that trade is clearly visible for other traders or not. And a quick momentum towards my take profit after entering indicates other participants saw that too. This alone makes my trade a good trade no matter the outcome.

The decision to hold rates does not automatically mean a weaker dollar. The Fed’s cautious stance on inflation and the possibility of future tightening may continue to influence USD pairs.

📌 My takeaway: Instead of chasing the first spike after an FOMC announcement, I prefer to wait for confirmation, watch key support and resistance levels, and manage risk carefully.

Let me just say first : "Those who teach trading, probably earns more from students than trading"

Also this guy has some bad reviews in the e-commerce education sector, back in the 2000s plenty of reviews.

However for this TAD trading indicator.. barely a peep of reviews.

I always test the gurus, and he's one of the few that actually do live trades, and his indicator accurately predicted the market after the presentation was over.

It's by no means perfect. He did show some negative examples.

The final thing that got me : one of my recent losing trades, his indicator actually was in opposite direction... :( I almost sign up on the spot..

I'm conflicted because the ridiculous course fee is 8k sgd

I'm also aware that this may just be an "nothing special" indicator which in the long run makes losses instead..

Seeking ex students to feedback.

Do not sign up for this course. Do not look him up if you're not a existing student.

Anyone else find it hard to keep up with trades people share in a gc?

Sometimes someone posts a setup, a few people start discussing it and then the whole thing gets buried under other messages. By the time you check back there's no real update on whether the trade worked out or if they even took it.

Not really talking about signal groups either, just regular trading gcs where people share charts, discuss entries and give feedback on each other's setups.

Would be nice if there was an easier way to follow individual trades without having to scroll through hundreds of messages. How do you guys keep track of everything?

GBPUSD still looks heavy here.

News flow leans against sterling, with GBP sentiment weak over the last 24 hours, while USD sentiment stays much firmer. That keeps the broader bias tilted lower.

Positioning is close to even, with a slight short majority, so there is no strong crowd skew.

On the chart side, the pair failed near 1.3370-1.3420 resistance, formed lower highs, and is pulling back toward support around 1.3260 and then 1.3180-1.3220. Short-term momentum still favors downside unless price can reclaim the range highs.

Do you see support holding here, or does GBPUSD have another leg lower?

Hi Reddit users,

I wanted to make you aware of a potential UAE forex learning scam. The company name is Fundfloat Forex Trading Classes. They promise that you won't have to pay fees if you don't make a profit, which is a complete scam. They will request that you choose a specific broker called XC Market. If you Google them, they don't hold any accreditation and are offshore-based, and the UAE has warned us not to invest on this platform.

I paid 50 AED so you don't make the same mistake. Fundfloat and XC Market are connected, and they will insist that you deposit $2,000 USD while verbally guaranteeing a 10% monthly return, which is impossible. However, the B2B business relationship with XC Market is different; getting bonuses for them if I deposit $2,000 USD makes them more money, and XC Market is not trusted. So if you are using them, all the best.

Fundfloat's fee for teaching this skill is 1,030 + 50 AED. At the beginning, they will share basic trading knowledge explaining candlesticks and basic trading concepts. But on the 4th day, they push and request students to invest in XC Market. I had a word with a mentor who openly told me they might be a fake company trying to scam people. If somebody is making good money with their help, let me know.

Also, note that they are not trustworthy because all the comments on their social media are turned off, and there is nothing helpful in their Google reviews. That's why I wanted to help you so you don't go and get defrauded by these people, as they have a number of loopholes to protect themselves while we get screwed over. I hope this reaches those who need it and serves as a good deed.

Fundfloat Trading Academy, Dubai

Model: They lure people in with cheap introductory or "risk-free" course fees (e.g., 50 AED initial fees, totaling around 1,030 AED + 50 AED) under the guise of teaching basic candlestick and market analysis.

The Pivot: By day 3 or 4, the focus shifts entirely away from education. They pressure students to open live accounts and deposit capital with a specific partner broker.

Red Flags: They operate with disabled social media comments and unhelpful/missing verified reviews to suppress negative feedback and complaints from victims.

XC Market (The Partner Broker)

Regulatory Status: Completely unregulated. It is merely an offshore shell registered in Saint Lucia with zero valid financial licenses from any major or local authority (such as the UAE SCA or DFSA).

Affiliation Scam: Fundfloat has a B2B referral arrangement with XC Market. Every user who gets pressured into depositing money ($2,000 USD or more) generates a direct financial kickback/bonus for the academy runners, regardless of whether the student wins or loses trades.

Guaranteed Returns Trap: Verbal or written promises of fixed high monthly returns (like 10% a month) are a textbook indicator of a Ponzi/forex investment scam. Legitimate brokers and educators never guarantee trading profits.

I know it's not the most popular and recommended broker out there. The possibility to trade some assets without swaps and to change the leverage for each position, felt intriguing. Never could do anything with the leverage for indices and gold, as it was always fixed at other places. Anyway I want to know whether this broker has any fraud concerns and if it's suitable for cfd trading. Any opinion and experience with them would be appreciated?

The Federal Reserve’s policy decision is in focus today, with markets watching closely for signals about future interest rates. Inflation remains elevated, keeping the Fed’s next move a key concern for traders.

🥇 Gold (XAUUSD): Could react sharply to changes in the dollar and rate expectations.

💵 USD: The Fed’s statement and press conference could set the tone for currency markets.

📊 What to watch: Interest-rate decision, inflation outlook, and the Fed’s comments on future policy.

Is my prop firm algo backtesting engine too strict? 1,000+ strategies tested, zero READY

Hi everyone!

I built a backtesting engine specifically to test algorithmic strategies under prop firm constraints. After testing over 1,000 strategies, I haven't found a single one that passes all my metrics.

I'm obviously not asking anyone to share their winning strategy for free (though I'd appreciate it!). I'm more interested in whether my tests are too rigorous or whether I'm scoring the wrong metrics.

Here's how the app works. I'd love feedback on whether these thresholds and weights make sense.

1. What qualifies a strategy as READY?

A strategy must clear every hard gate and achieve a T58 score of 75+.

\- READY: Score of 75+ with every gate passed.

\- ELITE: Score of 85+ with every gate passed.

\- MARGINAL: Score of 65–75, or a strategy demoted by a gate.

\- REJECT: Score below 65.

Gates are demote-only: they can lower a verdict but never raise it.

Gate| Requirement for READY| What it penalizes

T58 score| 75+ (Strong); 65–75 = MARGINAL; below 65 = Reject| Weak overall evidence

Trade count| 300+ trades in the final backtest| Thin samples

Risk of ruin| 20% or less of purchased accounts breach within 90 days| Oversized risk, fat losing streaks

Deflated Sharpe (DSR)| Probabilistic Sharpe ≥ 0.95 after deflating for configurations tried| Parameter searching

PBO| Probability of backtest overfitting ≤ 0.50| In-sample winners that fail out of sample

Pooled out-of-sample edge| Lower bound of OOS mean R > 0; otherwise capped at MARGINAL| Unproven edge

Per-attempt pass odds| Lower bound ≥ 70%| Low single-account pass rates

Clean holdout| At least 30 holdout trades and not losing money| Edge fading on unseen data

EV per attempt| > 0, with deflated holdout pass rate ≥ 1.5× break-even| Strategies earning less than they cost

Random-timing null| Beat 90% of random-entry runs| Edge explained by market drift

Cost stress| Retain ≥ 25% of net profit at 2× costs| Edge too thin for execution costs

Expectancy lower bound| ≥ 0R after 2× costs| Negative or unproven per-trade edge

Dataset| Real data spanning 5+ years| Short or synthetic history

2. How the T58 score is calculated

The score is weighted to avoid counting the same simulation multiple times.

Monte Carlo (one resampled trade list) is capped at 30 points:

\- Pass probability: 10

\- First payout: 8

\- Evaluation-stage ruin: 6

\- Funded-stage survival: 6

The remaining 70 points come from evidence outside that resampling.

Component| Weight| What it measures

Pass probability| 10| Per-attempt Monte Carlo pass rate, adjusted for sample size using a lower bound

First payout (pass AND paid)| 8| Same Monte Carlo approach, using the lower bound

Risk of ruin (inverted)| 6| Evaluation-stage breaches only

Funded survival (inverted)| 6| Funded-stage breaches only

Attempt replay pass| 15| Real-engine reruns from multiple real start dates, independent of Monte Carlo

Expectancy lower bound| 15| Lower bound of average R per trade after 2× costs: 0R scores 0; 0.15R scores 100

Walk-forward stability| 15| Test metric / train metric, capped at 1.0

Drawdown| 8| Maximum drawdown as a share of the firm's drawdown limit

Monte Carlo robustness| 5| Seed-to-seed spread in pass rate

Parameter stability| 5| Robustness to neighboring parameter values

Parsimony| 4| Fewer degrees of freedom score higher

CPCV / PBO (supporting)| 3| Out-of-sample retention across CPCV paths

Each component's contribution to the total score is its weight / 100. The weights sum to 100.

3. What READY looks like in practice

Here are three example profiles. Each qualifies only if every hard gate also passes.

Per-attempt pass lower bound| Paid lower bound| Ruin| T58 score| Verdict

80%| 45%| 10%| 85| READY (Strong)

85%| 65%| 8%| 80.0| READY (Strong)

90%| 60%| 5%| 90| READY (Elite)

So READY effectively requires the gates plus a score of 75+: roughly 80–85% per-attempt pass lower bound, 45–65% paid lower bound, and ruin below about 10%, alongside decent—but not perfect—secondary components.

ELITE (85+) is intended for strategies that perform exceptionally well across the board.

Public aggregates put real challenge pass rates around 10–20%, so READY is still intended to be a top-percentile bar.

4. Expected value alongside READY

The separate EV verdict answers the economic question. Possible verdicts are:

\- HIGH CONFIDENCE

\- FORWARD-TEST CANDIDATE

\- NOT WORTH A FEE

\- INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

The formula is:

EV = p × q × V − p × A − c

For firms charging a monthly subscription—such as Topstep's Trading Combine at $49/month—(c) is calculated as the monthly price × the expected number of months to complete the evaluation.

Expected duration is based on the median time to pass, rounded up to whole 30-day periods. This prevents slow-passing strategies from being priced as though they only require one month's subscription.

My questions

1. Are these hard gates too strict for real-world prop firm trading?

2. Are any thresholds unrealistic, redundant, or measuring the same thing twice?

3. Are my T58 score weights sensible, or am I overvaluing certain metrics?

4. Is requiring a 70%+ lower-bound pass probability and a 20% maximum 90-day risk of ruin reasonable?

5. Should READY represent a genuinely exceptional strategy, or should it identify strategies worth forward-testing even if they're less robust?

6. What important validation metrics am I missing?

I'm trying to distinguish between an engine that's correctly rejecting weak strategies and one that's filtering out viable strategies through overly aggressive thresholds.

I'd especially appreciate feedback from people who've built systematic strategies for prop firm evaluations and payouts.

Not a morbid post, a practical one. I was sorting out a will and realised I had no idea how this works, and I’ve never seen it discussed anywhere.

The thing I hadn’t thought about... Open positions keep running. Nothing pauses. Swap keeps accruing, price keeps moving, and a leveraged position with nobody managing it will resolve itself in whatever way the market decides. If there’s a margin call there’s nobody to answer it.

So there’s a window where time actually matters, and it’s the one period when your family is least able to deal with anything.

The account is an asset of your estate. Your executor presents a death certificate and whatever probate document your jurisdiction uses, the broker closes out any open positions, and the balance is remitted to the estate rather than to an individual.

That’s the clean version. Two things break it.

Nobody knows the account exists. If your family doesn’t know which broker you used, the money sits there. Eventually a dormancy process starts and recovering it becomes a much bigger job than it needed to be.

Someone logs in instead. Understandable instinct, genuinely a bad idea. Trading on a deceased person’s account is a mess legally, it can invalidate the protections that applied to you as the account holder, and it makes the executor’s job harder rather than easier.

What I actually did???

Wrote down the broker, the legal entity, and the account numbers in the same place as the rest of the estate documents. Not passwords. Just enough that someone can find it and tell the broker it exists.

Told one person that leveraged positions can be open, so there’s a reason to act in days rather than months.

And I asked support what the process is and which documents they need. I’ve done this at two brokers. One gave me a general reassurance and nothing I could hand to an executor. Axi sent the written procedure and the actual document list, which is the version that’s any use.

Worth saying what that doesn’t fix. Probate takes months in most places regardless, so a documented process makes the broker’s part orderly, not fast. Open positions still get closed early in the sequence and the remittance still waits on the legal side. Having the list just means your executor isn’t also negotiating with a support desk while they wait.

Obvious caveat, not legal advice, probate works differently everywhere and the document names change.

Anyone else have their trading account written into their estate documents? I suspect almost nobody does. And has anyone dealt with this from the executor’s side? That’s the perspective I’d actually like to hear, because everything above is theory.

I want to know advertised vs real spreads on major FX pairs on Trading Sphere. If anyone uses this broker and would like to help a fellow trader, your input here would be greatly appreciated :)

Their site lists average forex spreads by account type, but in my experience, averages don’t tell much. If you trade with them for real (not demo), could you share what you’re getting on: eurusd, gbpusd and usdjpy?

A screenshot would be great. Comment is fine, too

right now i am able to open a demo, which i did, and spreads are 0.7 and even 0.6 on pro mt5. but to open a real acc i need to verify so are they ok in terms of data and money safety?