c2 rating

can anyone comments on C2 rating such as 900 above , What does it mean really?

I would also like to know this. In addition, what about the ‘rating icon’ that system builders are assigned for each system. If ratings and rankings are important wouldn’t we be able to view these on the side bar near Best Systems, Most Popular? As in, Top Rankings/Ratings?

On a side note: The C2 forum is frustrating, trying searching for the word ranking or rating (or any search), then click on the post you want to read. It doesn’t work! (Trick: you have to note the date of the post and then go back to regular forum view and scroll back 7 messages at a time - too bad if the original message was posted in August.) I have many questions about C2 and it just makes sense to search the forums and see if MK or someone else has discussed the same issue to avoid clogging up the forums with repeat questions.

Returning to original question, yes what are Ratings and Rankings, and if they contain important information to potential subscribers, then why is there not a page view of Rating Icons or Ranking Icons.


One thing that I notice about the rating was that it changes with the most recent profitable trades. Does it mean that a trader is getting better or does it mean that because of the changing behavior of the trades , we see better results therefore it will translate into hight number. C2 states that 500 is good then what does it mean to have above 900 ??? Does it mean that we are more consistant, better trader, less aggressive , better money manager, and less vulnarable to market volatility? Or 900 and above mean that if we stick with that trader chances are we will make money in the future. Really !

Yes, I was 905 and now I am 890, I thought the systems ended the week with decent trades.

The annualized return focus bothers me. So as system writers we are encouraged to play fast and loose, use all BP to create huge trades with 40% nightly returns. Personally, I would not subscribe to a system based on Hot Hands alone. In addition, I have seen MK post on this before, at least once he stated that systems that trade LESS are better (or rather, fewer trades to base the criterion of successful) - just in the interest of dialogue here: C2 should have less of the administrations beliefs built in and a more neutral position for subscribers - let the Hot Lists sidebar be selectable based on their Risk Levels, etc.


Well, Annualized returns should be measured as net profit after commissions and slippage, divided by the beginning account size which gives you annual percent return on beginning account size. As I understand the figures here at C2 (though the info on commissions is available) does not take commissions/slippages into account.

Two things are important for me. First, the average annual net profit should be a atleast two times the maximum drawdown over the period (the dollar amount of the drawdown as a percentage of the total account value (should not exceed ½ of the average annual return) and the duration of the drawdown until a new peak level in equity is realized (should not exceed 6 months). Second, ideally there should be no losing periods.

Beware of systems claiming to deliver greater than 90% winners. Such systems usually exhibit a very poor average win to average loss ratio where a few losing trades can easily wipe out profits from several winning trades. They take lots of small wins, but lose their profit and more to the few losses they let become huge. The major reason why people fall prey to this is because they do not have a clearly defined money management rules.

Yes, I would like to know as well how the rating is done. I only have one system here, which is hanging in there through what seems a tough time for nearly everybody, and I have 849 or so.

I am very conservative with my trading, just as I am with my own money. I am not really interested in being included in the ‘Best Systems’ list, because many of those systems have drawdowns that make my toe nails curl, and then show up in some ‘best returns last week’ list. Big deal ! And I am not really interested in the highest ‘annualized return’, because I have seen quite a few of those ‘systems’ ridiculously overleveraged, making most basic trading mistakes like going into hope mode and piling on long positions in a falling market to a point that 6 months worth of profit is out the window just with one bad trade.

Yes, I would like how the rating is done.


I think how the rating is computed should be a closely guarded competitive, proprietary, secret to C2, for obvious reasons.

If I may give you a clue. If someone indeed managed to have a great rating, they must be a great trader. Atleast, that is how in theory it is supposed to be, whatever flaws it might have in practice. You do have a good rating…

And what would the obvious reasons be? If it is proprietary how do we know that the administrator doesn’t play favorites? Without knowing how it gets calculated, there is no accountability and for all we know they could get assigned based on who the adminstrator likes the most, complains the fewest, some random number, etc.

Without knowing how it gets calculated, the rating have no meaning at all. It is just some number no one know where it comes from.

Look at No-Losing-Weeks system. System had 3 trades, two losers for $60 and $285 respectively and one winner for $435 for a cummulative total of $90. The trader has a rating of 849. So according to the rating and your clue you gave us above, he must be a great trader.

Looks to me that the ratings and your clues are about worth the same.



I did not say the way the rating is calculated is perfect. It will be as C2 gets more experience…

No, you just give us clues that good ratings mean great traders.

Actually, the C2 Rating formula is being revamped as I write this. I expect a new version of the algorithm within the next few weeks.

Since it is undergoing changes, it’s not worth describing in great detail how the numbers work. I’ll tell you the following, though, since - even after the new formula is released - this will remain valid:

(1) The number is based on all your systems. The reason for this should be obvious. If we didn’t do this, people would create their Long System and their Short System, and then pick whichever one did better (and the score associated with it).

(2) The number is between 1-100 (or 10 and 1000, depending on whether you add an extra zero). It is actually a percantile ranking. Thus, the C2 Score describes where you rank in the universe of C2 trading system developers. A score of 999 means you are “better” than 99.9% of the rest of the C2 trading system developers.

(3) The actual “raw score” (which is ordered to make your percentile ranking) is what is undergoing modification right now. When the new algorithm is released, hopefully this month, I will describe it further.

Sorry for the lack of details here. More will come shortly, after the formula is modified.

""Without knowing how it gets calculated, the rating have no meaning at all. It is just some number no one know where it comes from. ""

Yes, this is the point of the whole thread. But there it is, ratings next to system developer’s name and ratings for each system. Why isn’t there a “Systems with Highest C2 Ratings?” link for subscribers? Unless it is meaningless? Just a feel-good number for the developer? Can’t wait for MK to get back from vacation.


When you mention percentile ranking, this reminded me of something I wanted to suggest.

How about using some kind of percentile rankings for systems under the “Best Systems” lists?

For example, the following “formula”, or variation can be used for each category of system.

Rank all systems by Annualized Return. 1 lowest

return, 100 highest return.

Rank all of them by Percent Drawdown. 1 highest

drawdown, 100 lowest drawdown.

Rank all of them by W:L. 1 lowest W:L, 100 highest


Add the three numbers together and divide by three to get again a number between 1 and 100 and list the top x systems under the “Best Systems” list. You can maybe for example, filter systems out with less than 20 trades and/or less than 3 months history.

I think this will be a better reflection of the Best Systems list as systems on there would be truly the best based on several categories compared to other systems.


- Fanus

Those are nice ideas. I have been intending to re-examine the way the “Best” lists are made. Also, I have been considering the creation of an API to allow people to add their own ranking algorithms to the site. But thanks for these ideas. I’ll see what I can do.