Does anyone know how much available margin C2 allows for day trading on stocks?
Is it 4:1 of the available "cash" ?
ie. With a cash account of $30k, can I purchase up to $120k of shares assuming would be closed out by end of day to meet typical broker requirements?
thanks.
It was my understanding it was only 4:1 intraday with 2:1 overnight. HIGH 5! Both sitting at 963…
Effectively 2:1 margin for stocks above price of $5.
Thanks Beau… High 5 back at ya. 
Matthew can you please verify. Does C2 support 4:1 intraday or only 2:1?
The brokers that I work with support 4:1 for day trading.
I guess what I am also asking, or want to know, what will C2 do if a system has up to 4:1 margin being used, if it only support 2:1?
Will the system error a message not allowing more positions if they are trying to open new ones?
tnx.
this really isn’t meant as a dig at anyone, but Beau - looking at the equity curves on your systems - if that is what it takes to generate a rating of 963 then it has to be about the worst advertisement for C2 systems possible.
Maybe the market is efficient after all…
Uh huh, coming from a vendor with no profits to show, I’m not sure you can really say anything.
agreed, as they say in the playground, it takes on to know one (crap system, in this case).
Do you disagree? The score suggests your systems as a group are in the top 96% of all available, doesn’t it?
Given that the best one has an equity curve that is up and down like a whore’s knickers, I stick with my original point.
A bad advertisement for C2, sadly.
A bad advertisement for C2, sadly.
Why? As I understand C2’s rating isn’t advertisement. It’s statistics of C2’s universe of system vendors. The statistics shows that common myth about 5%-10% of successful traders is based on real data 
Others are simply unprofitable. What’s wrong with presentation of the stats at C2?
Eu
"As I understand C2’s rating isn’t advertisement. It’s statistics of C2’s universe of system vendors."
Correct, but the vendors and their behaviour are effectively an advert for the site or at least the reputation of the products available there.
Imagine if you had a vendor that was a serial system killer constantly starting new systems blowing them up with insane leverage over and over and over again yet he still had one of the best C2 scores. It wouldn’t make any sense and yet it happens and that rating is a tacit endorsement by C2 of that vendor’s systems.
Oh we have that. But he manages to make enough to still be highly rated by C2.
They are, all beating the S&P by significant double digits, which I was told by Matt was a factor in the C2 score, then throw some risk adjustment, and other factors like a timing algorithm and it’s an accurate representation of the way I trade, especially when you factor the amount of trades in those so called “crap systems.” Let me tell how significant the less than 5 trades are.
I personally ignore all the scores.
Well I didn’t have someone specific in mind but I know they certainly exist.
Imagine if you had a vendor that was a serial system killer constantly starting new systems blowing them up with insane leverage over and over and over again yet he still had one of the best C2 scores.
It’s very good point actually.
Well… I would not name the vendor, but it’s true. We have the kind of situations when a vendor lost at C2 much more than even made and the vendor has high rating. Of course it won’t work with real money, but it works with “play money” at C2. From one point the hypothetical(!) system vendor is honest and he/she shows how he/she works on past mistakes. From other point he/she is in total debt and not even break even i.e. not real life situation.
Probably C2’s rating should consider total C2’s debt of a system vendor. Honesty, I mean if a system vendor not create hundreds of systems under fake names, will work in favor of the system vendor, imho. Because you can check his/her self-educational path.
the vendors and their behaviour are effectively an advert for the site or at least the reputation of the products available there.
Right. There is only one way to filter gamblers, but it’s double sided sword. There should be a section on C2 where all systems trades confirmed by brokers statements. In the case any subscriber will always know where he/she is hunting in “wild” or in “real life”.
Most vendors above 900 are in a race the top 10%. I don’t see much difference in the top 10%, b/c we can all, at some point, hit 1000. It’s like in Indy, everyone is just a half second behind the leader.
Nothing wrong with the presentation of the stats. They probably tell you all you need to know. And that’s why it’s a bad advertisement for C2 - or just commercially available systems, if you prefer.
Imagine a C2 advert that had Beau’s system’s on offer - would that not be bad enough. Extend the advert with the fact that this basket is in the top 5% of all on offer at C2. Can you argue that itis a good advert for C2?
Nothing personal Beau - you’re up where you want and deserve to be. Let’s just be honest that it’s only the polished end of the turd.
Nothing wrong with the presentation of the stats. They probably tell you all you need to know. And that’s why it’s a bad advertisement for C2 - or just commercially available systems, if you prefer.
Imagine a C2 advert that had Beau’s system’s on offer - would that not be bad enough. Extend the advert with the fact that this basket is in the top 5% of all on offer at C2. Can you argue that itis a good advert for C2?
Nothing personal Beau - you’re up where you want and deserve to be. Let’s just be honest that it’s only the polished end of the turd.
And that’s why it’s a bad advertisement for C2 - or just commercially available systems, if you prefer.
I see the point a little bit different. C2 is positioning itself as auditing authority. There is only one step for auditing C2’s system vendors turn over. If C2 weren’t represent the stats somebody would do it anyway. Not hiding the unpleasant for C2 statistics is necessary, because any C2’s usage is based on customer’s trust in presented statistics. In other words C2 shows as much as it can even if the stats is unpleasant for C2 itself. You can offer to MK different formula for rating calculation if you think that present one is wrong.
Imagine a C2 advert that had Beau’s system’s on offer - would that not be bad enough.
If you stay in cash all the time your rating could be 885 or you would do better that 88.5% of C2 vendors. Beau’s system is doing better that just staying in cash.
Extend the advert with the fact that this basket is in the top 5% of all on offer at C2. Can you argue that itis a good advert for C2?
Nothing personal, man. It’s statistics. Look at 885 score for staying in cash, i.e. 88.5% of C2’s system are blown up/unprofitable and from the point Beau’s system isn’t soooo bad.
Eu
Thanks, Eu. People don’t like it when “I” have to justify the performance.
there’s nothing about what you do I don’t like Beau. C2 is doing an excellent job at auditing comercial systems. None of this is the point I’m making, which is what e probably already know. Most systems are rubbish, simple as that.
I’d apply only one caveat. Long only stock systems have had to endure the worst maket conditions in living history. You can ay least understand the environment in which they might perform again. I’d be extremely concerned about a pairs trading strategy that was having its’ pants removed for such a lengthy period.
