The opinions expressed in these forums do not represent those of C2, and any discussion of profit/loss
is not indicative of future performance or success.
There is a substantial risk of loss in trading. You should therefore carefully consider
whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. You should read,
understand, and consider the Risk Disclosure Statement that is provided by your broker
before you consider trading. Most people who trade lose money.
If someone had the misfortune of being a new subscriber proximate to 8/20/15 trade, and followed the recommended minimum funding of $10,000, they wouldn’t have had 69k of equity.
Regarding scaling, the minimum position would have been 1 emini S&P, correct? So the first of the two positions in that trade was entered 8/20/15 at 3:46 @ 2068.50; the first exit would have been 8/21 at 10:37 @ 2006; a 62.50 point loss, or $3,125. That would be about a 31% drawdown, correct?
So you do trade your signals, but do not have C2 certify your as TOS?
hi. Where are you getting “recommended minimum funding of 10k” from? Not me, is C2 somewhere saying you need 10k to trade this? With regard to TOS, i’m from UK and my broker is not an affiliated C2 broker. I have considered this, but im not sure i am prepared to move brokers just for this and to be honest few of the popular system on here have this feature (and seems to have little impact on number of subscribers from a developers point of view).
I’m very sorry, I thought C2 said the starting unit size was 10k - I see it is 45k… I must have confused your system with another one I was reviewing. That would have put the 8/2015 trade with 1 lot at about a 7% drawdown as I calculate it.
Re TOS, I’m not sure how much it impacts subscribers overall… I can say it is meaningful to me, as it’s otherwise not possible for me to verify that you’re putting your own money at risk with your strategy.
Thanks for your reply and my apologies for the confusion.
Dear all. This is the chart of the ES for the last month or so.
As you can see the market has been basing at the top of the range for the last 10 sessions. It’s rare price action to be in such a tight range for this period of time and has been a frustrating time to be trading or rather not trading, as there have been few signals to trade when the market is stuck in such ranges (well at least for the B48 system). I’ve no doubt better trading condition will return soon, they always do, but until then the system will wait for the high probability signals, rather than trying to force trades. Regards
@B48ES, it appears your recent per trade profits are at least double what they were for most of last year. Has something changed with trading parameters in the strategy or is this just the result of higher volatility and increased market choppiness since early February?
System update on why no trades for the last few weeks. This is because there have been no trade signals. The market went from being volatile, then range bound and now we have broken out higher with a trending move. Frustrating after some decent action, but it’s normal for trade frequency to change and we will wait for the next high probability trade set-up.
The system description says “The system will trade 1 contract per $10,000 of equity and can take multiple positions, as equity allows.”,
The system currently has over 80k in equity yet almost all recent trades have been 1 contract (I see one 2 contract trade)
If I started autotrading this I would want to scale it up but the description implies that you may put on an 8 contract trade at any time which I would not want to scale — can you discuss?
Just a passing thought… You could scale up, and then place a limit on the number of contracts. For example, you could scale in at 800%, and them place a limit of 8 contracts on each position… If B48 ES opens 1 thru 8 contracts, or more, you will be limited to 8. Sticky point… Max Trade applies to all positions. As long as B48 ES opens only ES you are golden. If at any point in time B48 ES opens, say, YM, then you would have another 8 contracts open.
Going back 3 years with this strategy there has never been more than three contracts open at one time in a trade (less than 1%). Most trades in the last 2 years have been with two contracts, or less, open at one time (about 99%). A large percentage of the trades have been with only one contract (about 88%).
Here is one way you could look at scaling up but limit the number of contracts to reduce the amount of strategy capital utilized as well as reduce your total amount risked:
Say you want to scale up and trade the strategy at 200%. Just set the scale in the C2 auto trade control panel at 200% and set the max number of contracts at 4. Most times you would have two contracts open and sometimes a max of four contracts open. This method would have taken all trades from the last 2 years but would have eliminated the risk of taking on an unusual number of contracts in case there was an outlier trade with a large number of contracts. This would require roughly half of the C2 stated strategy capital (assuming some overnight holdings) thus approximately doubling the stated return but also doubling the drawdown.
Since most trades are one contract only you could scale at 300%, set the max number contracts at 3 and still could have participated in about 88% of the trades at 300% scaling with a three contract limit. This would require less than half of the C2 stated strategy capital but could approximately factor the stated return by 2.5x to 3x with about the same drawdown as per above.
One could theoretically scale at 600% with a six contract limit, capture about 88% of trades, and should easily be within the stated C2 strategy equity.
Furthermore, as stated above, be aware that scaling this way will multiply the stated percentage return but it will also magnify the stated drawdown percentage.
The intention of these rules is to let subscribers know there are limits in place and this system wont put on a massive position (even though the system equity and day trading margins would allow). It’s recommended the system is traded to scale.
@B48ES, I would agree that you keep and follow the strategy rules you have in place. If subs want to modify or bend their own risk parameters then that is their prerogative. And they are responsible for those modifications, I might add.
I’ve seen where developers have given in to subs to make all sorts of changes they suggest and suddenly it is no longer the same and successful strategy one originally subscribed to.
CoreyR, I haven’t suggested any changes to the system - I simply stated that the system description does not match the system implementation and it is the description that should be fixed.
For an $80k system the statement "The system will trade 1 contract per $10,000 of equity " means it will trade 8 contracts. Note the word used is “will” not “may” There is no ambiguity here.
If the system is never going to trade half that many contracts then the system owner isn’t doing subscribers any favors with an incorrect description since they have to rely on the system owner to determine appropriate scaling factor for their own account.
