"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…"
So you are “testing” a system that trades 1,000,000 lots in the
Emini? What is the logic there? You can’t trade that size all day
much less in 30 seconds. What is the purpose of the “test”?
If you can trade 1,000,000 ESUs then why bother? Take the money and go buy yourself Puerto Rico… or at least Jon’s club there. Drink cool drinks and kick back in a hammock. Hey, buy C2! I bet it’d sell for less
than $200,000,000.
Here’s my take: you boost quantity until you get lucky,
get a “homerun” trade, then try to bury that trade under lots of
smaller trades. This is what you did with the 477 CCU’s, and the
1,000,500 ESU’s. Get’s you some PR, you change the name,
start a new system, hope you don’t get busted by some jerk, get
on top of the C2 lists at all costs. For whatever reason you seem
bent on doing this. You admit to and apologized for "exploiting flaws"
to top the lists in the past.
"People exploit flaws all the time…"
Sure, using C2 flaws to attract C2 customers and take their
money under false pretenses may be legal, but it sure is slimy.
That system’s name will not be changed from “Test”. I’m not sure what your confusion is.
"That system’s name will not be changed…“
Well, that will be the first time you
have not changed a systems name, right?
Isn’t “test” the fifth name for this system alone?
Don’t you remember your prior posts saying
this was NOT a test system? Now it is.
Oh well. Whatever you say amigo.
I believe EVERYTHING you say. That’s why I want
to know your logic behind the 1,000,000 in the Emini
"test”. And now you are doing 15 1-2 minute trades
per hour…What’s up with that? I guess you just got off
from your day job so you have some time to
randomly click away and get the 1,000,000 lot onto page two:
BTO 50 @ESU6 1270.25 7/27/06 15:52 STC 50 1269.75 7/27/06 15:52
n/a
No calc
($1,250)
STO 50 @ESU6 1269.50 7/27/06 15:51 BTC 50 1270.00 7/27/06 15:51
n/a
No calc
($1,250)
BTO 50 @ESU6 1269.00 7/27/06 15:49 STC 50 1268.75 7/27/06 15:50
n/a
No calc
($625)
STO 50 @ESU6 1268.50 7/27/06 15:47 BTC 50 1269.00 7/27/06 15:48
n/a
No calc
($1,250)
STO 50 @ESU6 1268.25 7/27/06 15:46 BTC 50 1268.75 7/27/06 15:47
n/a
No calc
($1,250)
BTO 50 @ESU6 1268.75 7/27/06 15:46 STC 50 1268.25 7/27/06 15:46
n/a
No calc
($1,250)
STO 50 @ESU6 1269.25 7/27/06 15:44 BTC 50 1269.00 7/27/06 15:46
n/a
No calc
$625
BTO 50 @ESU6 1269.00 7/27/06 15:40 STC 50 1269.25 7/27/06 15:43
n/a
No calc
$625
STO 50 @ESU6 1268.75 7/27/06 15:39 BTC 50 1269.25 7/27/06 15:40
n/a
No calc
($1,250)
BTO 50 @ESU6 1269.50 7/27/06 15:37 STC 50 1268.75 7/27/06 15:38
n/a
No calc
($1,875)
STO 50 @ESU6 1269.00 7/27/06 15:13 BTC 50 1268.75 7/27/06 15:20
n/a
No calc
$625
STO 50 @ESU6 1270.00 7/27/06 15:06 BTC 50 1269.75 7/27/06 15:13
n/a
No calc
$625
STO 50 @ESU6 1270.25 7/27/06 15:04 BTC 50 1270.50 7/27/06 15:06
n/a
No calc
($625)
BTO 50 @ESU6 1271.50 7/27/06 15:02 STC 50 1270.50 7/27/06 15:04
n/a
No calc
($2,500)
" That system’s name will not be changed from “Test”. I’m not sure what your confusion is. "
In the same way when you “apologized” for another system, said you were PERMANENTLY pulling it due to your behavior, renamed THAT system to Test, then put it back into circulation a few days later under a different name?
I do NOT understand why the C2 owner puts up with this. He is making a mockery of the whole site. C’mon MK, when are you going to call a shamster a shamster and not let him run all over the integrity of C2??? A shyster is a shyster is a shyster. It quacks like a flock of a 1000 ducks. Dump this bozo!
Yeah, actually that’s not what happened.
It is PRECISELY what happened. But of course, your word is about as reliable as yourself, so why bother…
Right, well, whatever. Listen, I really don’t have as much free time as you seem to have, so I’m done withi this conversation.
Did you read "in addition to hitting for the fences" before you used the phrase "fraudulent statements"? Truly incredible.
"Listen, I really don’t have as much free time as you seem to have, so I’m done withi this conversation."
You seem to have had an hour to kill randomly clicking away trades.
And a crank is a crank is a crank.
"Did you read “in addition to hitting for the fences” before you used the phrase “fraudulent statements”? Truly incredible."
So are you claiming 1,000,000 contracts is a realistic trade? Common,
let’s hear the logic behind it.
This is “Truly incredible”:
Cumu $ $12,939,000
Show me a good reason and legit explanation for "testing"
a 1,000,000 lot when most of your trades are <= 50’s
and I’ll shut up. OK? Deal?
"Don’t you remember your prior posts saying
this was NOT a test system? Now it is."
Good point. Let me help his memory:
========================================
Posted: Matthew Graham (C2 Rating: 762)
When: 7/12/06 (13:29)
Systems: Doubleday Market Neutral, Test, One A Day, S&P
In response to post by Jules Ellis of 7/12/06 (13:20)
We cannot see for which systems you payed. If it is a test system you should have designated it as a test system in adva…
See entire
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My suggestion would be to only look at those systems which have ten trades or more.
=========================================
Well, this “Test” system has 128 trades, so we look at it.
Well, since you managed to doff the 477 cocoa trade system that then took one of the fastest plunges in C2 history… Lets look at a couple of your current temporary systems to see what happens with systems renamed "Test"
SYSTEM ONE
Original name Changed to When changed
Graham Trading Graham Options Trading 6/30/06 12:06
Graham Options Trading Graham Options and Equities 6/30/06 12:39
Graham Options and Equities Graham Options and Equities; and Futures 6/30/06 13:08
Graham Options and Equities; and Futures Graham All Markets Trading 6/30/06 13:09
Graham All Markets Trading Alpha Trading 7/6/06 13:23
Alpha Trading Test 7/6/06 16:48
Test Options Express 7/10/06 15:21
Options Express Doubleday Testing System 7/10/06 15:23
Doubleday Testing System Doubleday Long/Short Equities 7/11/06 11:15
Doubleday Long/Short Equities Doubleday Market Neutral 7/11/06 13:19
Doubleday Market Neutral Doubleday Long/Short 7/11/06 14:17
Doubleday Long/Short Doubleday Market Neutral 7/11/06 14:38
ANOTHER
Graham Aggressive Options Aggressive Options 6/28/06 15:20
Aggressive Options Graham Aggressive Options 7/5/06 15:18
Graham Aggressive Options Aggressive Options 7/8/06 0:44
Aggressive Options Options Testing Only 7/11/06 15:08
ANOTHER
"Test System- DO NOT SUBSCRIBE!"
but of course it also says: "On July 18, 2006, the subscription charges will change to the following: Graham Options Straddles offers a 7-day free trial period…If you allow your subscription to continue after the trial period ends, we will bill you $99 dollars each month for as long as you subscribe
etc. etc.
I personally think, that devoting to much comments to these special systems, achieves only one thing and that is :
attention
Whoever has not recogniced by now, the background and intention of this system vendor is certainly not qualified for trading anyway.
Still amazed that C2 allows abuse of its site.
the worry is, that new people are always coming in…
I agree with Christine, and I shouldn’t have posted above. For new subscribers it would be enough to post one reminder once a week. Nevertheless, bringing the margin requirement under attention was a good reason to start this thread.
I agree with what others have said, MK why are you allowing this guy to stay when he has done nothing but abuse every aspect of the site?
It certainly doesn’t help the credibility of C2 to have someone like this running around.
I would have deleted all of his systems and banned him long ago.
> I personally think, that devoting to much comments to these special
> systems, achieves only one thing and that is :
> attention
Of course, but the issues go beyond this one guy. The
integrity of the entire C2 ratings/rankings scheme is
called into question. If C2 were a casino this guy would
have broken the bank with house money…paper
trading money, but still there he is atop the leader list
as I write… And if such obvious manipulation gets
by, how do I trust the rest of the list and it’s rankings?
FWIW, yes, I’ve been around long enough to read between
the lines and figure out what’s legit and what’s not, but
most C2 subscribers (and even vendors) have not. C2 says:
“We probably get more angry and frustrated questions about Limit and Stop orders than any other subject.”
"Most people who have previously traded with real brokers know about limits and stops."
What does that tell us? A large number of C2 vendors (much less
subscribers) have never had a real money account, much less done
any serious research or trading. C2 needs to do it’s best to protect
subscribers from ludicrous vendors and from themselves. In the long run this is good business: if all the subscriber funds get flushed down
a toilet there is nothing left for C2.
Yes, yes, yes: buyer beware, but let’s not allow blatant cheating
and exaggeration. The exaggerated trades started weeks ago in the account in question (months ago in others) and they still stand
in the C2 track records.
Anyway, this is a bit like steroids and sports. We just want everyone
on a level playing field. In this case, the system in question was allowed
to use steroids AND he was allowed unlimited “strikes”. Sooner or later he was going to hit his home-run.
Dear Matthew Graham,
With integrity like yours, may I suggest that you leave C2 and go into politics.
I strongly doubt whether any subscribers would be dumb enough to be fooled into paying for your systems anyway. So why are you bothering? Just to wear out Ross’ and Sams keyboards? Move on.
"may I suggest that you leave C2 and go into politics."
So true, nigel
