C2 score

The C2 score algorithm is very poor, mostly based on [number of profitable trades %]. Please look on PIPALERT. Score 1000, with:

avg win ~$1,600

avg loss ~$31,700

max peak to valley ~48%

and system holds overnight (avg trade duration ~13 hours)

C2 score is perfect to suggest if customer will get heart attack. Please adapt it to say about quality of system instead.


1 Like


I’ve brought this issue to Matt before. There is NO good reason to keep the C2 score formula a secret, except one which I’ll discuss in a moment. If you design a formula that reflects sound and positive trading methods, then there is no “gaming” the formula by developers, as “gaming” or aiming to trade in a manner that would up one’s score would simply be applying a method which would be as sound and logical as the design of the formula should be in the first place, so no loss to anyone.

The ONE reason ownership at C2 might keep it a secret is that by skewing the formula to make developers who bring in more revenue to C2 score higher, C2 profits. So, for instance, those developers who use auto-trade, or who have many systems might be given a higher score based on a self-interest based scoring formula. Take Pal Anand for example. He has had twenty to thirty systems running at times, all (or nearly all) grossly non-profitable if I’m not mistaken, yet has a 965 C2 Score. Hummm, makes one wonder doesn’t it. Follow the money and it ALL makes sense doesn’t it?



I just noticed that Rick Haines has a 996 score. Look at his overall ;portfolio of systems and it appears much like Pal Anands portfolio, only approximately half the size. (Rick has only started about 20 systems). There is no doubt in my mind that if I paid for 30 systems and all 30 were losers I would have an incredibly high C2 score. Can’t you guys just come clean with this? It’s patently obvious, the score is designed with C2’s self interest in mind, not objectivity, who can’t see this?

Greg -

There are indeed problems with the C2 Score algorithm, but perhaps they are not what you think. The main problem is that it gives far too much weight to longevity on the site (i.e. how long you have been using C2). Without revealing any specific private user information, I think it is safe to say that - if you see a score that seems wonderingly high - it is likely because the user has been on C2 for a very long time.

There was a reason for this over-weighting of longevity (I felt that a longer track record was much more valuable than a short one), but I do agree that the way it is currently implemented has many shortcomings.

I have promised a revamp of the C2 Score algorithm before, and I do so now again. I hope to be in a position to tackle it soon.


WOW Greg I am just cruising along minding my own business and you come along and give much miss information on my track record. Please forgive me however I find it hard not to speak out and let the truth be known.

I have created 14 signals on C2 not 20. My history dates back to August of 2006. Of those 14 signals 6 of them we discontinued while making money and beating the S+P 500. 6 of them were closed out losers. I am currently running 2 signals RPH and RPH2. RPH has been tracked for 14 months and is showing a 45% annual return. RPH2 is only 3 months old and showing an 88% return.

Please get your facts strait before getting on this public forum and naming me personally. I am not a good example of a loser with a high C2 score.

Thank You

Rick Haines