Just wondering how C2 sets margins.
The former “Doubleday” system put on 477 CCU6 with
$100K in equity a while back. As best I can tell they
put on 120 ESU6 with less than $20K in equity yesterday.
Is this Kosher with C2? BTW, you may have have trouble
finding “Doubleday” as it’s now called “test”.
Also, are there any consequences for making fraudulent statements
on C2?
“In addition to hitting for the fences, the system utilizes a day in, day out methodology trading currency, energy, financial, grain, index, meat, metal, and soft futures. These trades, which make up the bulk of the system, are ***limited to 2.5% of total margin allowed (per contract type).***”
“Test 3 wks 106 Mostly Futures; (some forex) Daytrade (rapid) 23% 2.3 n/a 11852.8% 7 days $199/mo”
"STO 1,050,000 @ESU6 1278.39 7/26/06 15:04 BTC 1,050,000 1278.00 7/26/06 15:07"
Here we go again…Does C2 have ANY control over this kind of margin abuse?
In theory this system could have real subscribers with real money, right?
I don’t want to mention the “L” words, but this is an invitation to trouble
on a bunch of different levels. Moreover, this is not fair to other vendors in the ratings list.
"Matthew Graham has a Collective2 Rating of 761."
Yikes! 97% DD, 1,000,000% of margin, abusing the C2 system
in various ways, name changes on a day to day basis and you
get an “excellent” rating and the #1 over all system?
Is it me, or is something just not right?
You are right and I am looking into how the system allowed him to place these trades. For now, his system has been suspended.
> For now, his system has been suspended.
Thanks…and I’m not trying to harp on you or
this system, but I posted about the 477 CCU6’s
some time ago and heard nothing. I’m not sure
how that wasn’t an abuse as well. That trade
stood for weeks. Again, real people with real
money could end up down $1,000,000’s overnight
with this kind of wildness.
Well, as in any marketplace, theres a degree of caveat emptor here - “buyer beware.” If you subscribe to a system where the owner trades recklessly and ridiculously, and then you turn on autotrading, and then you don’t have tight trading permissions… well, there probably aren’t a lot of people out there who do that.
MK
The scary part is a lot of these systems start out normal enough and then one day the vendor just goes crazy and starts putting on trades like these. At least TB allows you to specific a max position size.
You have to hand it to him for those trades yesterday. Classic Martingale (had quite a string of losers going there too) but whatever flaw he was exploiting allowed him to just keep going with sequentially larger positions until he finally had a winning trade.
Too bad your broker wont let you do that.
"Well, as in any marketplace, theres a degree of caveat emptor here - “buyer beware.” If you subscribe to a system where the owner trades recklessly and ridiculously,…"
OK, but in this case you have a guy trading 1-2’s and then 477 CCU out of the blue. Moreover, and my point to you, his track record is
seemingly judged by C2 as valid. The 477 Cocoas was deemed OK
for some time even though it was reported and should have been busted.
The 1,000,000 ESUs was there in the track record until I posted
about it too. And again, the guy has an “excellent” C2 rating along
with his #1 system ranking even though he was flagged by Ross and
the boards from day one…
Again, I think C2 is great and I think you are doing a fine job. Nonetheless, I’d like to see C2 take a more conservative approach sometimes in how systems are rated.
I agree Sam. BTW, the trades in question (including the amazing $20 million / 3 minute trade) are still there:
http://www.collective2.com/cgi-perl/systems.mpl?want=publicdetails&systemid=21860841
This seemed to be “get a bunch of free systems, overleverage them up to your 5 trades. If one hits, people think you are a genius and the imploded systems will disappear from your record”. Nothing that guy did was ever honest or appropriate. I stayed on him from day one, because people like him can ruin C2. Once he shows everyone how to exploit every vulnerability of C2, it won’t be long before others try to cut in line…
> You have to hand it to him for those trades yesterday. Classic Martingale (had quite a string of losers going there too) but whatever flaw he was exploiting allowed him to just keep going with sequentially larger positions until he finally had a winning trade.
Well, yea, the "winner" made less than a tick on more volume than
the market had all day. Not only does this point out flaws in the
margin issues, but the trade could never have occurred in ANY
real life account no matter how much equity you had: it calls into
question the validity of all C2 track records vs the real world.
System is clearly marked test. What’s the problem with “Martingaling” a test system if I feel like it? I want to use that for testing purposes and I don’t want to have to worry about drawdowns on a test system. So, if collective2 has a flaw that allows “Martingaling”, fix it. People exploit flaws all the time. Why do you think the SOES bandits were called bandits? Those people made millions, essentially by exploiting a flaw. Fix flaws, don’t fault me for bringing them to your attention. And again, system is being used for testing purposes, it is clearly marked as such.
coming from you, the words “exploit” are hardly comforting. About the only good thing your eploitaing of C2 has done here, is exposing many weaknesses in C2, by trying to cheat, steal, mislead, fake, defraud, lie, and connive in every way possible. Happily Matthew is fixing some of these holes.
I think at last count, you were at least 6 different ways to cheat the system. We had multiple false IDs to point to your system, fake reviews, running up your page views into the many thousands, likely using the false IDs to keep clicking on your systems to keep them in the “Most viewed this hour”, plagiarizing/stealing other vendor’s work as your own, using false IDs to post favorable comments in your forums, and one I had not even thought about – what you were doing with the free systems – until the other day (the 477 cocoa contracts?). Throw some systems out there. Run an astounding number of contracts. If they hit big, you look good. The other systems, let them die off and they disappear from you record (unless you pass 5 trades).
This martingale thing (as Sam calls it) is probably more of the same. It is not a test system by calling it “Test”. It is a test system by designating it that way in the system setup.
Had hoped you had disappeared, but the plague continues. Hopefully you don’t garner any more sympathy here on C2 from people who don’t know what you have done or except perhaps from your “invisible false ID friends” How are Jen Tyll, J Tyll and others doing these days?
Why do you think the SOES bandits were called bandits? Those people made millions, essentially by exploiting a flaw.
So if you exploit a flaw, it seems justified to call you a bandit as well.
Nevertheless, I agree that it isn’t really a problem as long as the system is clearly marked as a test system in its name. The problem comes when you would change this in the future.
I would mark it as a permanent test system except that this has to be done prior to making any trades.
You bore me. Has it occured to you that my primary purpose might be doing research?
I’m glad that you feel I’ve made positive contributions.
Yes. There are good reasons for that. Why don’t you create a new system that you designate as a test system in advance?
"You bore me. Has it occured to you that my primary purpose might be doing research? "
Of course I bore you. A person without morals doesn’t give a whoopee about anyone but himself.
Research? Like the way a hacker trying to break into government systems does research?
"I would mark it as a permanent test system except that this has to be done prior to making any trades."
Actually in a prior post you stated this system was for real. Indeed you
touted it.
I think it was pretty self-explanatory when I changed the name of the system to "Test" as well as indicated "Testing Only" as part of the description. My original hypothesis may have been correct, but the drawdowns were too severe.
