Meta-Trader - Forex Bulletproof review

Welcome back Meta-Traders.

The forex hype-machine has been in overtime lately selling the latest, best-ever forex robot called Forex Bulletproof.

The system trades EUR/USD and USD/JPY on an M1 timeframe. The manual recommends IamFX as a broker and provides a link to download M1 historical data from the IamFX site. Unfortunately, the link only provides data for EUR/USD, and the link itself didn't even work to download EUR/USD data when I tried it. So I performed all my testing on an FXDD which contained 10 years of historical data for EUR/USD and USD/JPY.

The 10-year results are shown on the left. The modeling quality was poor - only 25% which could call the results somewhat into question. Second, the system uses a 7-pip take-profit in many trades which is a low enough number to be subject to tick interpolation errors caused by the MT4 backtester.

The system had 3 spectacular years out of 10, in one case returing over 200%. But the rest of the time, the system was a disaster. For example, the in the year 2000, the system lost 47% of its equity within the first few months - which totally nixed the effect of a 10-year full backtest.

What really got me was the graph on the left which shows a 1 year backtest for 2010. The equity curve is smooth and rising. Then at the end of the graph, it just fell off a cliff. And the test didn't even make it past February!. I started again in March, and again in April, same result. It did have a few winning months after that, but I don't think your account would survive long enough to see them.

Another thing about this system is that its a Martingale. That means it opens 0.01, then 0.02, then 0.04 and so on until either it takes a profit or blows you account. You might have a smooth and rising equity curve for a time, but it will eventually blow your account.

The system also trades USD/JPY with test results shown on the left. But it requires a minimum account size of $4000 - which is hard-coded into the EA and cannot be changed.

Why is that you ask? Because a 10-year back-test shows the system won't survive a back-test without at least $4000 in equity without blowing up the account. Keep in mind the position sizes do not appear to adjust based on account balance. Its still follows the 0.01, 0.02, 0.04 progression.

I've tested a lot of systems and needless to say, i'm not impressed with this one. I would suggest you ignore all the hype and save your money.

See you on the weekend with the weekly review.