The number your system generates is rather interesting. Why does it favor those who generate a lot of revenue, in various forms, for you guys?
The theory was that the best way to determine the value of a trading system is to see whether real-world people actually spend their hard-earned money on it. That’s why the original C2 Score gave a lot of weight to systems with lots of subscribers and subscriber revenue.
In reality, the current C2 Score stinks and we’re in the process of changing it. More announcements soon.
MK
Please consider implementing a ranking component (or grade on a curve, if you will), so in order to move up the score, some other system must be displaced.
Why even have a Scoring system?
Any new method you come up with is going to be subjective (since someone at C2 will pick what they think the important criteria are). So that means you are guaranteed to have a percentage of people who are unhappy with the results and want the “unfair” system changed.
If I was looking for a system, I would want to know how satisfied paid subscribers were. Since these folks vote with their feet, the sum total of paid subscriber days would indicate their satisfaction with a system (why pay to subscribe unless you get benefit?). That would be an interesting metric, I think.
You’d have to work around vendors who gave out nearly free subscriptions just to cheat the system and things like that, but the best systems would be those that kept subscribers the longest. Goofball vendors, reckless strategies and the like would, almost by definition, get low scores for those systems, since subscribers don’t stay around too long for either.
Kevin,
I think that would be an interesting metric to include, but as you point out, different people emphasize different characteristics. In addition, just like in the normal market, the popular choice is often the wrong choice (how many subscribers have we seen chase martingale systems?), so I would not weight the score too heavily towards subscriber days.
The best option is to have a downloadable csv of the Grid, and then we can run our own calculations over time and see what works. I don’t think the C2DS API is a viable option, since there are 20,000+ results, and then each individual result must be further queried to get the relevant statistics for that system. The whole process would take hours, and by the time the last systems were downloaded, it’s possible that the first systems would have already updated their stats, resulting in an apples and oranges comparison. But it sounds like the Grid csv or changing the C2DS API is no small technical fix to implement, so I don’t think it’s going to happen. I think the best we’ll get is a new C2 scoring system, so let’s at least try to get the best one we can.
Hi All,
A honest and objective score should consider couple of points :
1) A system should have have a minimum history lenght or number of trades to be eligible to c2 score to exclude all the lucky systems that blow out after few weeks.
2) Then the most objective way to judge a system is risk/reward so the score should highlight as much as possible this metric
[LINKSYSTEM_55764569]
A “make your own score” would be neat. Plus it would eliminate the current scoring system.
Yes, you are right that a subscriber number based system could be dangerous, since subscribers don’t always make smart decisions, especially in the short run. I think we are witnessing some of that now, with some systems blowing up.
I agree, risk/reward is very important. Based of what I’ve seen here in the last 8 years though, many people would disagree with that. They appear to want reward, without recognition or understanding of the risk component.
A prime example is people jumping aboard a brand new system, by a brand new slick talking “guru” developer (he had some “secret” method he uncovered somehow, like an Indiana Jones movie) a few years who got off to a great start. The risk was there, hidden, and most people ignored it and signed up anyway. They were only looking at the potential reward. They all got smashed. What they should have done was ron away from the system as fast as they could!
