<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Ray Scalper V1.9 Review And Discussion	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://forexfbi.com/ray-scalper-v1-9/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://forexfbi.com/ray-scalper-v1-9/</link>
	<description>Forex Bot Investigations - A comparison of the top forex robots and user discussions about optimization, settings strategies and more.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 Mar 2013 20:54:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: W		</title>
		<link>https://forexfbi.com/ray-scalper-v1-9/comment-page-1/#comment-65709</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[W]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 2013 20:54:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forexfbi.com/?p=4332#comment-65709</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[FOREX RAY SCALPER Initial Reaction:  Upon visiting their website, I had 3 immediate reactions:

1. The website was impressive as was their apparent attention to detail.  This clearly was a website that was developed with far more thought and depth than the average EA hype website we see.  If the average reader  / Forex newbie simply excepts this more impressive presentation at face value, a sale will likely be made, albeit despite the relatively high price tag - $350.00.

2. However - it may still be of the same class as all the others. 

I say this because despite all of their diatribe on how the EA was developed and how it works - they apparently back-tested using the most basic and untrustworthy method - using MT4 and its data.  Notice the 90% model quality.  Anyone knows that the modeling quality MUST be higher to be valid - reference Birt or other responsible testers.  Any legitimate EA developer should describe what method, specifically, they use to back test - and state, clearly, how reliable their back-test method is, in my opinion.

3. And yes they present the logic - from their perspective  - as to why they offer no money back guarantee.  Sounds reasonable at first.  BUT - - the reality is that, the product, as with any product - MUST perform as promised or it is simply another misleading scam.  telling us it WILL perform is simply not good enough.  

Their refusal to put their &quot;money&quot; in a sense where their mouth is, suggests simply that it is just another EA that will may do well, for a brief period, then blow up - as do most.  Their refusal to guarantee their product is unacceptable.

Finally, I did not purchase the EA, this is simply my opinion after reading some of their advertising material. I may be completely incorrect.  Do your own homework and form your own opinion.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FOREX RAY SCALPER Initial Reaction:  Upon visiting their website, I had 3 immediate reactions:</p>
<p>1. The website was impressive as was their apparent attention to detail.  This clearly was a website that was developed with far more thought and depth than the average EA hype website we see.  If the average reader  / Forex newbie simply excepts this more impressive presentation at face value, a sale will likely be made, albeit despite the relatively high price tag &#8211; $350.00.</p>
<p>2. However &#8211; it may still be of the same class as all the others. </p>
<p>I say this because despite all of their diatribe on how the EA was developed and how it works &#8211; they apparently back-tested using the most basic and untrustworthy method &#8211; using MT4 and its data.  Notice the 90% model quality.  Anyone knows that the modeling quality MUST be higher to be valid &#8211; reference Birt or other responsible testers.  Any legitimate EA developer should describe what method, specifically, they use to back test &#8211; and state, clearly, how reliable their back-test method is, in my opinion.</p>
<p>3. And yes they present the logic &#8211; from their perspective  &#8211; as to why they offer no money back guarantee.  Sounds reasonable at first.  BUT &#8211; &#8211; the reality is that, the product, as with any product &#8211; MUST perform as promised or it is simply another misleading scam.  telling us it WILL perform is simply not good enough.  </p>
<p>Their refusal to put their &#8220;money&#8221; in a sense where their mouth is, suggests simply that it is just another EA that will may do well, for a brief period, then blow up &#8211; as do most.  Their refusal to guarantee their product is unacceptable.</p>
<p>Finally, I did not purchase the EA, this is simply my opinion after reading some of their advertising material. I may be completely incorrect.  Do your own homework and form your own opinion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
