I’ve received Pmails about this, so here is one last post about "margins"
on C2.
> I think I know the answer to your question: “Why test 1,000,000 contracts per trade?” (the emailer thought he went “crazy”)
I said:
Actually, I think he knew what he was doing. He just kept increasing position size (500, 1600, 2000, 3000, 7000, 34,000, 129,000, 1,000,000) until he could make a tick or two. Notice after the “big winner” (1 tick) he started back to trading 50 lots one after another in one minute trades…sometime 20 trades per hour, until the huge 1,000,000 trade was buried on the back pages. I doubt this was an accidental pattern.
It surely was not a test of a “system”. He knew exactly what he was trying to do, and he simply will not admit it. You don’t need 1500 SATs to figure this one out.
If a casino let you have credit to infinity and you kept increasing your bet size until you won big you could break the house 7 days a week. That’s what happened here, but only as a paper trade.
Moreover, C2 still shows a RF of 84…
RF is updated periodically I think. And yes, I did know what I was doing, which was mostly just fooling around on a test system. Also I did want to have enough equity in my test system so that I could test things out without having to worry about drawdowns or having a minimum contract size be too much relative to overall equity. It’s not really possible to test much out on 5K or 20K. No margin for error, as many former daytraders can undoubtedly attest.
It is a breach of integrity to know that one is right and then proceed (
usually with the help of some rationalization) to defy the right in practice. To do this, a person must willfully brush aside his knowledge; he must blind himself to what he already sees and pretend that he does not think what he knows he does. This is what called as "faking one’s consciousness.“
The man of integrity recognizes that he knows what he knows, that what is right is right, and that this knowledge may not properly be evaded when the time comes to act. It may not be evaded for the sake of achieving “spontaneity,” “security; from drawdowns or whatever,” " social harmony,” or any other end. The alternative is to reject morality, dispense with cognition, and suspend one’s conceptual faculty. On such a person, the conceptual faculty wreaks its own revenge.
To irrational principles, one cannot be loyal. Ideas that are not derived from reality cannot be consistently practiced in reality.
In the very act of a man endorsing a compromise between clashing ways of life, the essence of one, independence, has been thrown out; while its opposite has become the ruling absolute. This is part of the reason why such a man grows increasingly mindless with the passage of time. One accepts a rational principle either as an absolute or not at all.
There is no “no-man’s land” between contradictory principles, no “middle of the road” that is untouched by either or shaped equally by both. Even the most short-range mentality cannot escape the influence of principles; as a conceptual being, he cannot act without guidance of some fundamental integrations, whether explicit or implicit. And just as, in economics, bad money drives out good; so, in morality, bad principles drive out good. If a man tries to combine a rational principle with its antithesis, he thereby eliminates the former as his guide and adopts the later (this is the mechanism by which the conceptual faculty avenges itself on the unprincipled man).
The good is the rational; it is that which conforms to the facts of reality and thereby fosters man’s life. Such a principle must be upheld as an absolute and practiced without contradiction; it acquires no advantages from its antithesis…
>The man of integrity recognizes that he knows what he knows, that what is right is right, and that this knowledge may not properly be evaded when the time comes to act. It may not be evaded for the sake of achieving “spontaneity,” “security; from drawdowns or whatever,” " social harmony," or any other end. The alternative is to reject morality, dispense with cognition, and suspend one’s conceptual faculty. On such a person, the conceptual faculty wreaks its own revenge.
Your version is more eloquent. I said:
"You will never have any success trading as you cannot even be honest
with yourself…although wasting ten years of your life trying may be perfect Karma. "
Please tell me that’s not Ayn Rand. I went through that phase when I was about 14.
>"You will never have any success trading as you cannot even be honest
with yourself…although wasting ten years of your life trying may be perfect Karma. "
I agree. Thanks. We are often told that someone’s “noble ideal” can be attained only by evil actions, which we are then urged to perform (“the end justifies the means”). This license to immorality is to be rejected. The end does not justify the means. The truth is the exact opposite; an immoral means invalidates the end. The full statement of this view is that the end-in-itself, man’s life, determines the fundamental means of human action (the proper principles); and these in turn delimit the concretes one can validly pursue in a given context. The ultimate value sets the virtues, which then guide men in the assessment of any particular object proposed as a goal. This is the only approach that escapes the impossible dilemma of means vs. ends, or virtue vs. value. The escape consists in recognizing that virtues are not their own reward or a species of self-torture, but a selfish necessity in the process of achieving values.
Conventional moralists usually regard honesty as a form of altruism. They regard it as the selfless renunciation of all the values one could have obtained by preying on the naivete of one’s fellows. Such a notion is to be discarded. In both forms - honesty with oneself and to one’s fellows - the present virtue, like every other, is an expression of egoism. Every virtue defines an aspect of the same complex achievement, the one on which man’s survival depends: the achievement of remaining true to that which exists: rationality - commitment to reality (existence exists) and its obverse: honesty - the rejection of un-reality (only existence exists).
It is not a breach of integrity, but a moral obligation, to change one’s views if one finds that some idea he holds is wrong. It is a breach of integrity to know that one is right and then proceed (usually with the help of some rationalization) to defy the right in practice. To do this, a person must willfully brush aside his knowledge; he must blind himself to what he already sees and pretend that he does not think what he knows he does. That is what Ayn Rand calls “faking one’s consciousness” in “Virtue of Selfishness”, “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?” p. 68.
It’s like talking to a puppet! Who knew- Randians still exist outside Alan Greenspan’s tired mind.
Since I have vacation I allow myself to waste my time on this discussion that is going nowhere anyway:
Some say he is a con artist. He says that he is a student. Lets review the evidence, or at least some opinions about him:
1. He consistently tests out the limits, to an extent that every normal person would call fraud - except that there were no priorly written rules against it.
2. He does this without any logical reason.
3. He is self-centered and irresponsible.
4. He is unable to understand the point of view of others.
5. He produces nothing, except futile excuses.
6. He expects that others will give him a new chance, again and again.
7. If he gets a totally undeserved second chance, his interpretation of that will be that he has the right to execute point 1 again.
Sounds like a real student to me!
If he is a student, then I predict that he will suddenly apply the highest moral standards when it comes to judging others. But then a con artist could do that too, of course. Hmm. Perhaps we should give him a statistics exam. If he fails, he must be a student.
This is only my opinion after having teached for 23 years. I know some con artists too. One of my best female friends is one. A con artist typically
a. Wont get caught, except perhaps after a long time.
b. Exploits the weakness of willing victims.
c. Never admits that he/ she lied (e.g. keeps denying pregnancy while the childs head already sticks out; really!).
d. Will turn things around and portray you as the one who is being immoral.
e. Walks away when people become too angry.
In my opinion, the behavior of MG fits better with the first than the second set of descriptions. So far.
PS. Yesterday I said that he should not be allowed a visible system in the next year. I changed my opinion. The purpose of C2 is to let subscribers distinguish between the good and the bad. If C2 is good, then there is no need for special action against one vendor. Neither by MK nor on the forum. If there is something not good at C2 (like the buying power), that should be fixed, and then there is again no need for special action.
- Enjoyment is a logical reason for a person’s actions. Maybe I enjoy pushing my luck, testing limits, or tinkering. Enjoyment itself provides utility- traders should be greatful for such a fact, as profits flow from gamblers in zero-sum markets such as futures.
2. I’m perfectly capable of understanding the point of view of others. I might disagree, I might not care, but I can assure you I understand.
3. I tend not to judge others, although when I do, I tend to judge them harshly…usually for deviating from reason in some way.
4. I guarantee you I won’t fail any statistics exam that you might devise.
5. Yes, I am a firm believer in second chances.
6. I’m quite sure that I will produce something of considerable merit given some time. If I have produced anything small it is because I aim high. What have you produced?
6. Should I be thanking you?!
- Doesn’t understand my jokes … definitely a student.
7. Sure. Basically I agreed with you. Did you not like it?
Cheers
> 1. He consistently tests out the limits, to an extent that every normal person would call fraud - except that there were no priorly written rules against it.
2. He does this without any logical reason.
3. He is self-centered and irresponsible.
4. He is unable to understand the point of view of others.
5. He produces nothing, except futile excuses.
6. He expects that others will give him a new chance, again and again.
7. If he gets a totally undeserved second chance, his interpretation of that will be that he has the right to execute point 1 again.
Student and/or psychopath… or both.
> If there is something not good at C2 (like the buying power), that should be fixed…
If!!!
and RF…
Something is clearly not correct in the records of the system Test. For eg., after this trade:
BTO 270 @ESU6 1248.11 7/21/06 15:45 STC 270 1244.50 7/23/06 20:15
($62,250)
Extreme
($48,749)
The account equity dropped to -26275.00 All trading is pretty much over at this point. How is this system then allowed to trade further. Analysis report at this point is below:
=============================================================================================
A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T
Market System Analyzer V2.0
=============================================================================================
=============================================================================================
EQUITY TABLE
=============================================================================================
Trade PL/Unit Risk/Unit No param Units Pos PL Equity
1. -1,509.00 1,509.00 NA 1 -1,509.00 98,491.00
2. -2,158.00 2,158.00 NA 1 -2,158.00 96,333.00
3. -400.00 2,158.00 NA 1 -400.00 95,933.00
4. -1,218.00 2,158.00 NA 1 -1,218.00 94,715.00
5. -6,000.00 6,000.00 NA 1 -6,000.00 88,715.00
6. -1,600.00 6,000.00 NA 1 -1,600.00 87,115.00
7. -1,300.00 6,000.00 NA 1 -1,300.00 85,815.00
8. 1,550.00 6,000.00 NA 1 1,550.00 87,365.00
9. 1,500.00 6,000.00 NA 1 1,500.00 88,865.00
10. 64,779.00 6,000.00 NA 1 64,779.00 153,644.00
11. -2,538.00 8,000.00 NA 1 -2,538.00 151,106.00
12. -8,000.00 8,000.00 NA 1 -8,000.00 143,106.00
13. -2,299.00 8,000.00 NA 1 -2,299.00 140,807.00
14. 450.00 8,000.00 NA 1 450.00 141,257.00
15. -1,500.00 8,000.00 NA 1 -1,500.00 139,757.00
16. -150.00 8,000.00 NA 1 -150.00 139,607.00
17. -8,225.00 8,225.00 NA 1 -8,225.00 131,382.00
18. -8,070.00 8,225.00 NA 1 -8,070.00 123,312.00
19. -4,150.00 8,225.00 NA 1 -4,150.00 119,162.00
20. -5,380.00 8,225.00 NA 1 -5,380.00 113,782.00
21. -4,200.00 8,225.00 NA 1 -4,200.00 109,582.00
22. -10,200.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -10,200.00 99,382.00
23. -820.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -820.00 98,562.00
24. -3,250.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -3,250.00 95,312.00
25. -3,062.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -3,062.00 92,250.00
26. -8,225.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -8,225.00 84,025.00
27. -8,070.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -8,070.00 75,955.00
28. -4,150.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -4,150.00 71,805.00
29. -5,380.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -5,380.00 66,425.00
30. -4,200.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -4,200.00 62,225.00
31. -10,200.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -10,200.00 52,025.00
32. -820.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -820.00 51,205.00
33. -3,250.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -3,250.00 47,955.00
34. -3,062.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -3,062.00 44,893.00
35. -750.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -750.00 44,143.00
36. -625.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -625.00 43,518.00
37. -1,500.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -1,500.00 42,018.00
38. -562.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -562.00 41,456.00
39. -437.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -437.00 41,019.00
40. -875.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -875.00 40,144.00
41. -1,140.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -1,140.00 39,004.00
42. -1,102.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -1,102.00 37,902.00
43. -3,062.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -3,062.00 34,840.00
44. -2,374.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -2,374.00 32,466.00
45. -7,062.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -7,062.00 25,404.00
46. 8,062.00 10,200.00 NA 1 8,062.00 33,466.00
47. -854.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -854.00 32,612.00
48. 1,968.00 10,200.00 NA 1 1,968.00 34,580.00
49. 1,125.00 10,200.00 NA 1 1,125.00 35,705.00
50. 0.00 10,200.00 NA 1 0.00 35,705.00
51. 403.00 10,200.00 NA 1 403.00 36,108.00
52. -1,887.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -1,887.00 34,221.00
53. 7,674.00 10,200.00 NA 1 7,674.00 41,895.00
54. -4,825.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -4,825.00 37,070.00
55. -375.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -375.00 36,695.00
56. -1,875.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -1,875.00 34,820.00
57. -350.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -350.00 34,470.00
58. -550.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -550.00 33,920.00
59. -400.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -400.00 33,520.00
60. -2,474.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -2,474.00 31,046.00
61. -2,087.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -2,087.00 28,959.00
62. -1,912.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -1,912.00 27,047.00
63. -12.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -12.00 27,035.00
64. -4,037.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -4,037.00 22,998.00
65. -2,462.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -2,462.00 20,536.00
66. -362.00 10,200.00 NA 1 -362.00 20,174.00
67. 2,300.00 10,200.00 NA 1 2,300.00 22,474.00
68. -48,749.00 48,749.00 NA 1 -48,749.00 -26,275.00
=============================================================================================
PERFORMANCE STATISTICS
=============================================================================================
TRADING PARAMETERS…
Initial Account Equity: $100,000.00
Trading Vehicle: Futures
Initial Margin: $0.00
Round-turn slippage per contract: $0.00
Round-turn commissions and fees per contract: $0.00
No skipped trades. Trade at least 1 contracts per trade
Position Sizing Method: None
No. Contracts: From input data
Trade in units of 1 contracts
PROFIT SUMMARY…
Total Net Profit: -$126,275.00
Gross Profit: $89,811.00
Gross Loss: -$216,086.00
Profit Factor: 0.4156
Highest Closed Trade Equity: $153,644.00
Lowest Closed Trade Equity: -$26,275.00
Final Account Equity: -$26,275.00
Return on Starting Equity: -126.28%
TRADE RESULTS…
Number of Trades: 68
Number of Winning Trades: 10
Number of Losing Trades: 58
Percent Profitable: 14.71%
Max Number of Contracts: 1
Minimum Number of Contracts: 1
Average Number of Contracts: 1
Largest Winning Trade ($): $64,779.00 (72.90%)
Largest Winnning Trade (%): 72.90% ($64,779.00)
Average Winning Trade ($): $8,981.10
Average Winning Trade (%): 15.27%
Max Number Consecutive Wins: 3
Largest Losing Trade ($): -$48,749.00 (-216.91%)
Largest Losing Trade (%): -216.91% (-$48,749.00)
Average Losing Trade ($): -$3,725.62
Average Losing Trade (%): -8.30%
Max Number Consecutive Losses: 31
Average Trade ($): -$1,856.99
Average Trade (%): -4.83%
Trade Standard Deviation ($): $10,500.34
Trade Standard Deviation (%): 28.59%
Win/Loss Ratio ($/$): 2.4106
Win/Loss Ratio (%/%): 1.8410
Return/Drawdown Ratio: 0.0000
Modified Sharpe Ratio: -0.1689
DRAWDOWNS…
Number of Closed Trade Drawdowns: 2
Average Drawdown ($): -$97,052.00
Average Drawdown (%): 65.64%
Average Number of Trades in Drawdowns: 33
Worst Case Drawdown ($): -$179,919.00 (117.10%)
Trade Number at Trough: 68
Number of Trades in Drawdown: 58
Worst Case Drawdown (%): 117.10% (-$179,919.00)
Trade Number at Trough: 68
Number of Trades in Drawdown: 58
You ran an analysis report on someone else’s test system?
Charming.
>there is no need for special action against one vendor. Neither by MK nor on the forum.
I disagree. Forgiveness in moral issues is earned, if the guilty party makes restitution to his victim(s), (assuming this is applicable); and then demonstrates objectively, through word and deed, that he understands the roots of his moral breach, has reformed his character, and will not commit such wrong again. Forgiveness is unearned, if the guilty party wants the victim(s) simply to forget (evade) the breach and forgive without cause - or if he offers as cause nothing but protestations of atonement, which the victim(s) are expected to accept on faith. In regard to minor moral lapses, it is not difficult for a man to demonstrate the necessary understanding and reform.
I didn’t say that anyone should forgive or forget. I said that it should be sufficient to fix the error(s) of C2. In this case, that implies among other things that his trades after the negative account value should be deleted and that no new trades should be allowed in that system. This virtual bankrupcy will then remain on his C2 track record forever. (That’s how C2 suggests that it works on one of the introduction pages). So no one will forget. Next, every potential subscriber can decide for himself if and when he wants to forgive.
To: Matthew Graham,
I’ve seen you start I don’t know how many systems, all of them losers, and your continual postings. May I inquire as to what you’re doing here? Is this some sort of game? It appears you have no viable system, and are just fishing around for something that might work. Frankly, I’m very tired of you, and the wannabe “philospher” Palsun. I wish you would both take your useless posts somewhere else. You to someone that is a fool who will buy a useless system, and Palsun to philosphy 101 where students have to listen, but do so begrudgingly. In any case, neither of you belong in C2 where people seek good systems and a way to make money.
What’s it like adjusting insurance claims?
I vote to let Matthew Graham stay.
1. He discovers flaws in the C2 system and blatently exploits them. He is in effect doing everyone a favor. A more clever person, might exploit the C2 flaws in not so obvious a manner, better disguising his motives and no one is the wiser.
Anyone who is dumb enough to go for one of MGs system’s will lose their money in the market eventually, so he is just speeding up the process.
2. His forum posts and the response counterposts provide great entertainment value and livens up an otherwise dull evening working with charts and trade set ups. They are the first thing I read when I log in.
3. I am trying to develop a system that fades his signals. I might finally be able to make some money in the market if I can pull it off. Anyone know how to setup TBullet to take the opposite side of a trade signal?
