CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 66 % of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.

Risk Stability Investable Attribute (former Risk Management)

We are talking about DARWINs. If you place an SL to close your investment when the DARWIN hits a given quote, I am not sure what the track record shown matters for this purpose?

That being said, I agree that martingales are a statistical illusion, but as an investor, nothing stops you to close your investment through an SL before it crashes!


I think it should be made clear that D-score will be lower for Darwins with less EXP as otherwise it suggests that they are not as good as other Darwins with same track record.

@ignacio My suggestion would be to have a forecast D-Score on the assumption of 10 D periods. This would provide investors with a fair interpretation whilst not penalising younger Darwins.

p.s I know the “PROMISING” badge does this to some extent but I think it needs to be clearer.


Is this Rs score valid? :smiley:

So 100% VaR is best way to get good Rs :slight_smile:

This Darwin is a bit crazy anyway? :open_mouth: -100% range return but 10k+ Account (ok maybe he refunded)

Edit: ok he notes this “Please note, the Return graphic in the underlying trading strategy description is not accurate since my strategy requires to make a withdrawal or deposit at the end of every day in order to start the next day with the same mt4 account size.”

I have no problem with younger Darwins having lower D-Score, as I think track record is important, but what I feel not comfortable is that many underperformed Darwins with every mediocre return,even with an overall losing account, a lot of them with big DD, many consecutive losing months, still have good score which is very confusing.

I think perforamce and return/risk ratio is well under-proportionated while Cs R+ R- Dc are weighing too much, I am still not sure what they mean and I have failed to see any correlation of these with the true investability of Darwins.

I shall even say that I am in general against the idea and effort to combine some score of attributes into one single comprehensive one.

if the original account lost 94%, and its darwin does not show the fact and give people illusion that it is still alive and trading as usual, I think the Darwin conversion needs some review.

When martingale fail, it fails big, even with Darwin risk manager’s protection, because Darwin conversion in the first place didnot taken into consideration of the final crash which was always unprecedented for the specific martingale type startegy, I am not sure just a Darwin SL can solve the problem.


I can agree but here we are speaking about martingales and Rs. :slight_smile:

Here you can find my opinion about timing and consistency.
Consistency Investable Attribute (R+ R- Dc)
Os/Cs Investable Attribute (former Timing)

1 Like

I disagree 1000%. You don’t invest in the underlying strategy, there’s absolutely no point in drawing conclusions out of sth that has ZERO impact on the investor side.

This is NOT Myfxbook, Zulu or eToro: you do NOT copy the trading strategy, here you trade a product built out of that strategy.


I was also talking about darwin but I may have misspoke.
What I wanted to say is that, if I’m not mistaken, the max drawdown is not right on darwinex as it is calculated on a daily basis.
So before the martingale crashes, and since its principle is based on the recovery of the loss, it is very likely that the max drawdown displayed is well below the reality.
This is the same thing about the entire trackrecord, since before the crash it often shows a beautiful regular curve.
As a result, the Darwin SL could be reached much more often than it appears, which would make the investment lose before the Darwin crash.

I know there are others ways to estimate the risk that the SL is reached on the dawin, we can for example check the negative excursions.
But I think it would be useful to limit as much as possible the pitfalls in which the beginner investors could fall.

I’m agree with you that darwin adjusts the risk and that can limit the damage of a martingale, and it is also true that the SL may work for a while, but the risk remains huge.
Anyway, in my opinion, the main problem is not the result that can get a darwin based on a martingale, but rather the reliability of a trader who uses this kind of strategy.


Ok, now I see where you are coming from.

This is not entirely true:[quote=“Pulse07, post:48, topic:545”]
What I wanted to say is that, if I’m not mistaken, the max drawdown is not right on darwinex as it is calculated on a daily basis.

There is one DD updated on a daily basis and then there is a DD that is updated live when you check the DARWIN.

In any case, DD calculation does NOT affect DARWIN pending orders. These work based on the DARWIN’s quote, which is updated in real time. For example, you can set an SL order when NTI’s quote reaches 200. Your investment will be closed then, irrespective of the DD calculation / display on the site.

I hope this helps to clarify this confusion!

PS: [quote=“Pulse07, post:48, topic:545”]
Anyway, in my opinion, the main problem is not the result that can get a darwin based on a martingale, but rather the reliability of a trader who uses this kind of strategy.
[/quote] Please don’t get me wrong, I am not defending martingales, I am 100% with you!


I understood that.
I apologize for my lack of clarity.
As you can see, English is not my native language and I have a hard time expressing what I mean.
I did not want to talk about the influence of trackrecord or DD calculations on orders of a darwin, but rather how these informations could be interpreted by a novice investor.
And also the difficulties he would have to evaluate the consequences of an SL on a darwin based on martingale.

I think that for a novice, a nice curve of regular return + a small max DD + a good D-score = the graal.
And even if they are aware of the risk of a martingale, if you tell them that an SL can make a martingale a great investment this becomes even better than the graal.

IMHO, whatever you do, there will always be a lot of investors who will never take the time to acquire the knowledge required to invest properly.
I think it is in everyone’s interest that these traders invest in serious and reliable Darwins rather than in martingales.
But for that, you have to make them the easiest task possible so they can find the right darwins and especially avoid the worst.


Exact, with the right darwins and right expectations about return and DD there is no need for a stoploss.

DScore has to guide investors to the right darwins.
Rs has already a good weight for DScore but maybe it shoud be even higher, like Mc for example.

There is no need to invent new things, just a different calibration.

1 Like

You have been 100% clear, no worries. English isn’t my native language either :slight_smile:


I think the solution is to remove the D-Score then. We give you the different scores and you set up your own filter. This way, each user can define what criteria to follow to find good DARWINS.


Without DScore people would look to return even more than now.
Rating systems is an important added value of Darwinex.


sorry, did you mean that the orginal startegy has ZERO impact on the Darwin that the what happened within the original account can be ignored.

What I see is that some hard and pure martingales were transformed into some thing less risky, indeed people are protected by Darwin risk manager and won’t lose everything, but they should avoid them in the first place, I can not say the Darwin conversion helps the deception, people should know better, there is no excuse for that. but unless Darwin conversion can turn a badly failed martingale into a winning system, or we cannot say that they are entirely irrelavent.

I think the importance of DScore is witnessed by this survey:

Nothing is useless, everything is improvable.


So, only 1 month passed. Martingale in action.:smiling_imp:

We are waiting :sunglasses:


“I have more than $ 1,500,000 in management. I am trusted by more than 200”

They weren’t looking to his Risk Stability chart! :-1:
Equity 0.00
Game Over!
Insert Coin!


Thank you!

I promise I did include this in the “To Do” list for the guys generating the content. I will chase them :wink:


BTW, in this specific case, I’d say it looks like a technical issue on the trader’s code.

I am not allowed to disclose too much info, but there was an abnormal amount of orders (really, A LOT of orders!) processed by this account last night.

If you ask me I’d say, this was not part of the trader’s plan!