C2 database problems?


A just listed system “Eagle FX”, with only 18 views, looks an awful lot like the much-discussed, 10-month-old system “Hawk-fx”. However, some statistics and trade sizing are obviously way off those for Hawk-fx, not to mention non-standard for C2 in general. For example, $6,000 starting account size and 1 mini-lot fixed trade size.

A just listed system from the same vendor, “Speedy Demon”, with 5 views, looks an awful lot like the well-known, 6-months-old system “Turbo Trader”. Again, some statistics and trade sizing are not even in the ballpark. $20,000 starting account size, 1-lot ER2 trade size, average trade length of “-112550.3 minutes”… nice.

I am not an avid reader of this forum, but… none of it makes any sense whatsoever. What am I missing here? Thank you.

Read the other thread, “Black Dog and White Dog?”

Testing, 1-2-3, huh? OK, thanks for the link, Pete. Hope Matthew gets around some time to making all his “test” systems invisible to the public, as he indicated in that thread. A preferred solution, I would think, than merely changing their names to something conspicuous, although that would certainly be a step in the right direction, too. Glad the C2 database wasn’t corrupted, cross-linked, etc., after all.

In the meantime, now that we know the reason, we can simply disregard any such obviously implausible, internally contradictory systems in our C2 searches.