As to date, I haven't heard of anyone who has finally found a successful workflow using the easiest path (maybe someone did and hence doesn't need to be active in the forum cos too busy with his own success).
Algorithmic trading is relatively new. I do believe there are probably people out there who have developed a structure and workflow that will allow them to generate randomly and achieve good results. However, I also believe these same people have:
1. Put a LOT of time and effort into finding this workflow, and
2. Put a LOT of ongoing effort into the testing and maintenance of their generated EAs.
I personally don't believe there will be an ultra-simple workflow that will allow us to press the START button and with minimal effort obtain a whole bunch of awesome, profitable strategies.
To develop a sufficient workflow, we will need to work as a community in a methodical way. "Trial and Error" just won't cut it, because the data we are working with is just too random and our sample sizes are too small (relatively speaking).
It's very easy to come up with all sorts of AWESOME looking strategies with EA Studio/FSB. But the problem is that the software is looking through so many strategies, that it WILL continually find patterns where there are no patterns. Or perhaps portions of these EAs are valid, but some of the indicators are simply noise.
How are we to tell the difference between a "valid" and profitable strategy (i.e. one that generates profits in the future predictably) and a strategy that was developed on a false pattern that doesn't really exist.
As a (admittedly stupid) example, consider the fabulous "when it rains in Kansas City" indicator that I've just developed. This indicator reads "TRUE" on days that it rains in Kansas City and "FALSE" on days that it does not. You are super-excited about this new indicator and fire it up in FSB, using it to generate in conjunction with all the other available indicators.
And...OMG...it generates 100 VERY nice looking profitable EAs within 24 hours.
But something surprising happens when you put these EAs on your live trading server for four months: 80% fail to make money! And they looked so good...
But wait, you say, I still have 15% of my strategies left over! That's awesome! If I can generate 15 winning strategies in a day like this, there is not limit to the wealth I can gain in one year!
You might say, well that's just stupid. That's a totally made up example and it's blatantly obvious to any idiot that this worthless indicator that you're touting isn't going to work worth a damn. And you would be 100% correct.
And, you might say, there's NO WAY that 20% of those EAs you generated would be profitable over the span of four months. I mean, if they are making a sufficient number of trades, that is...say, at least 40 trades.
Aha, there you are WRONG. It is entirely possible, and most likely probable, that 20% of those strategies would show profit over four months. But wait, this is basically a totally random indicator. The FOREX markets don't care if it rains in Kansas City; they won't be affected by that event one bit. No, they won't, that is correct. However, the indicators that they are combined with are not totally random and will yield "some" counterbalance to this stupid indicator.
So why not just remove this indicator that we were so excited about and once again just rely on the default indicators? Well, yes, that is certainly better. But how much better? I would venture to say you would increase your success rate to about 25%. So is 25% "better"? I would say, not really.
Yes, I don't have hard data...but 25% success, 35% success, there really is little difference. The problem is: how are you to know WHICH 25% will perform profitably during that four month span? Unless you develop a better methodology, you won't. It's impossible.
So why not wait and see which ones are profitable after four months, and VIOLA! You have your winning strategies! This might be part of the equation, but it's still not nearly sufficient, as some (many) of those remaining strategies will still be randomly profitable and not viable for future profit.
So just weed them out as they prove that they are not profitable. Again, I am quite certain (no, not 100%...) that this will not work without more in depth workflow. At any given time, you will not have enough (future) profitable strategies remaining to offset the losses you will incur with the ones that will lose money.
As Hannah said above, if the truly "simple" method of EA generation and deployment worked, we'd have more than one rich person bragging about their accomplishments around here (or on forums of similar products). Yes, it's true that some would be closed-mouth, but they would likely be the ones who are much more methodical and thoughtful about the way they approach the softwares--someone who has developed a workflow with much concerted effort.
There are so attempting the "easy" methods that SOMEBODY would have found the "magic bullet" by now.
And, no, I'm not attempting to discourage anybody from using the software. I'm just saying we need to be digging a lot deeper than we are with a methodical approach.
Also as Hannah says, I doubt that anyone can demonstrate a repeatable "success" with simple generation methods. And I think we can all agree that "success" means dependable profits. (Actually, that is not entirely true...autotradingacademy.com is getting rich off the notion!)
I know of one trading group who has done quite well in the last year+ with another software (inferior to FSB). But this trading group has added a LOT of proprietary code, programmed extensive analysis tools, and developed a workflow that they are (reasonably) unwilling to share with the rest of the community.