Do you think it is appropriate naming FX products and FX EAs with names such as "Get rich now", "Quick fortune", etc.?

[[Deleted]]

Sometimes you can get to the point where the FX world and the gambling world may seem the same to some people. In fact, some brokers apply this idea to promote and sell their products while others seem to adhere something like a scientific FX.

What do you think about it? Is there a serious FX and a gambling FX? Anyway, how would you name an EA able to grow 60% a trading account? 

Thank you! 

[Simon Gniadkowski]

laplacianlab:

What do you think about it? Is there a serious FX and a gambling FX? Anyway, how would you name an EA able to grow 60% a trading account? 

60% over 10 years or 10 weeks ? it makes a big difference . . . 

[Alain Verleyen]

laplacianlab:

Sometimes you can get to the point where the FX world and the gambling world may seem the same to some people. In fact, some brokers apply this idea to promote and sell their products while others seem to adhere something like a scientific FX.

What do you think about it? Is there a serious FX and a gambling FX? Anyway, how would you name an EA able to grow 60% a trading account? 

Thank you! 

There is only one Forex, but there are serious people, gambling people and also scammers. From my experience only the last categories use names like "Get rich now" or "Quick fortune". And the result is generally "Lose your account quickly".

[[Deleted]]

RaptorUK:
60% over 10 years or 10 weeks ? it makes a big difference . . . 

Well, in general it wouldn't matter, I think, because 60% growth is supposed to be excessive for human professional traders! That's what they will say. Or maybe they are simply denying the fact that there exist machines perfoming like that. I would understand them if so!

On the other hand, you can find many robots everywhere performing like that, you just have to go to MQL5 Market or Signals Service and see.. So why shouldn't one name them like that? Names like "Get your fortune today" may sound gambling but be also real at the same time. 

This is certainly a paradox!

[Alain Verleyen]

laplacianlab:

Well, in general it wouldn't matter, I think, because 60% growth is supposed to be excessive for human professional traders! That's what they will say. Or maybe they are simply denying the fact that there exist machines perfoming like that. I would understand them if so!

On the other hand, you can find many robots everywhere performing like that, you just have to go to MQL5 Market or Signals Service and see.. So why shouldn't one name them like that? Names like "Get your fortune today" may sound gambling but be also real at the same time. 

This is certainly a paradox!

It's no so difficult to make an EA who makes 60% in 10 weeks. It's makes A HUGE difference if it's 10 months, without even talking about years. There is probably alot of EA in the market who wins high percentage the first weeks, but how many are still profitable after 1 year ?

If a see an EA with such a name, I don't even take a look and pass my way. Either the author doesn't know what he is talking about, either it's a scammer.

[Osama Shaban]

Your question just makes me remember those who market their product saying: "You can make $2500 a day !" ... This is not a logical expression at all. Professionals must talk in pips instead of $$$.

[Simon Gniadkowski]

laplacianlab:

Well, in general it wouldn't matter, I think, because 60% growth is supposed to be excessive for human professional traders! That's what they will say. Or maybe they are simply denying the fact that there exist machines perfoming like that. I would understand them if so!

On the other hand, you can find many robots everywhere performing like that, you just have to go to MQL5 Market or Signals Service and see.. So why shouldn't one name them like that? Names like "Get your fortune today" may sound gambling but be also real at the same time. 

This is certainly a paradox!

I don't think many people would describe 5% growth per year as making a fortune . . .

[Simon Gniadkowski]

oshaban:

Your question just makes me remember those who market their product saying: "You can make $2500 a day !" ... This is not a logical expression at all. Professionals must talk in pips instead of $$$.

Fools talk in pips, professionals talk in percentages.  A trade of 10 pips is worth how much in $s ?  you cannot answer because you do not know the position size . . .  if you made a gain of 1% today you would know exactly how much that was because you know your account size.  1% of a $1000 is exactly the same as 1% of a $100,000 account . . .  yes, it is,  it is 1%.  

[[Deleted]]

The Cratylus is a Plato's dialogue where the nature of names is discussed. In this dialogue, Socrates is asked whether language is a system of arbitrary signs or whether words have an intrinsic relation to the things they signify.  

[Arturo Lopez Perez]

I prefer to speak about return on my money instead of points or pips, just like I do with other investments. IMO there are a lot of people out there that believe that you can make a fortune in the forex market without giving anything of value in exchange. Those are normally people without education or skills that don't understand the very nature of money, but sadly there are a lot of them. So, they are a big chunk of the public and that is why sellers go for them in the way of false promises. They are always looking for the "magic no-loss 100% winners" EA or indicator to get rich fast. I just stick to a no false promises policy and whenever any of those yahoos approaches me, I told them my products are not for them.

[[Deleted]]

Hermogenes

Here is Socrates; shall we take him as a partner in our discussion?

Cratylus

If you like.

Hermogenes

Cratylus, whom you see here, Socrates, says that everything has a right name of its own, which comes by nature, and that a name is not whatever people call a thing by agreement, just a piece of their own voice applied to the thing, but that there is a kind of inherent correctness in names, which is the same for all men, both Greeks and barbarians.

Plato, Cratylus, section 383a