Re subscriber counts you might want to read the ‘Most subscribed to’ thread from January where I believe MK last made a comment on the subject.
John,
Yeah - I know that only a handful of systems here at C2 will probably pass my vetting - I’ve resigned myself to that.
I love to write code - with degrees in Computer Science and Math - I cut my teeth building mainframe-based operating systems, compilers, assemblers and the like. While I was a practicing programmer and database designer - I learned and forgot many languages over the years. I even got involved in the early days of building artificial intelligence systems before I went into management.
I just retired and have a Bucket List full of stuff to do. I’m afraid if I make a decision to start building my own system, I’ll get consumed by it. And I don’t want to do that.
I’d rather canvass the universe of products that are out there and buy a few systems from qualified vendors.
I just see so much garbage here on this site. It could be some much more valuable and vibrant.
And we all could enjoy it more and profit from it.
This site should be a wonderful incubator for developers of trading systems, along with an associated marketplace where you could sell and I could buy your products that emerge from a controlled, systematic process that yielded investment-grade products.
We could use each other as Mentors - Vendors could showcase their talents and knowledge by taking the “stage” periodically and leading by example.
We could all learn more about portfolio diversification/asset management/money management techniques if we had the place and facilities in which to play together.
For instance - we could learn more about whether systems that incorporate randomized entries yield profits, how to measure and judge if a particular system needs my needs, etc. The list is lengthy. System developers learn more and Customers learn more. The more Customers learn, the better equipped they are and more likely to buy something.
This should be THE place where system developers and customers want to come and where they find a lively, vibrant experience.
It’s not the way it is right now.
Mathew - are you listening?
Broadsword,
Thanks - I’ll check it out.
Skip you have called the content on this site garbage so many times. Why would you ask if Mathew is listening? Would you if you were him?
This has gotten to the point of skip asking stupid questions. Anything he can possibly think of has already been touched. Go back and read more of the past threads, skip, as you are lying about having read them. You are not up to speed on all of these subjects.
Per the region comment: Vendors already have those options. They can make it a test, or not allow subscribers if they want it to be publicly viewable.
Vendor’s can create their own forums, too, but only for subscribers.
I don’'t think I’ve said it quite like that or as often as you imply - (others are too, by the way…). And certainly not all content here is garbage.
Let me ask you - on the Home page - we read that there are 7,741 (or whatever) systems here to choose from. Does anyone really believe that? That are for sale and that anyone would in their right mind ever buy??
Would I listen if I were Matt?
Absolutely. Word of mouth is still one of the most powerful marketing forces ever created. If tell everyone I know not to bother with C2, they’ll probably listen. I do when I hear stuff like that - particularly if I respect the opinion of the person offering it.
I don’t have to criticize the site to know it isn’t hitting on all cylinders (and I’m not criticizing the site just to criticize it). Constructive comments are a better choice. I only have to read your conversations silently, note the frustrations of various system developers who are not attracting subs, the many systems constantly crashing and the lack of governance and standards on the site. I only have to question my own experiences with the site as a newcomer to ask how it is working out so far.
I’m investing time to try and make it better. That’s all. Shoot the messenger if you will.
Mathew hasn’t asked me and I don’t expect that he will. But - if he’s a smart businessman, he will always be interested in feedback and trends that are taking place within his site that may affect its future financial value to him.
Karl’s comment was profound about how he has resigned himself and given up reading and investing time in Chats and Forums because there is nothing of value to him and no one seems to value what a Customer has to say - that should be a HUGE red flag to the owner of the site.
Just my opinion…
I suspect that there are not as many subs populating this site as one might think at the moment - there are not that many investment-grade systems here right now - and the tone is definitely vendor-centric. If people buy subscriptions - they only do until the system they have selected blows up or experiences a serious DD and they’re gone. Short- term visitors to the site.
So - here goes… Who’s happy with the site? Who’s making a killing on subs? Where are the successful testimonials??
Come on, people…I have to believe that Matt would WELCOME constructive feedback. This is a public vehicle - it comes with the territory - don’t be afraid to voice your opinion. The LAST thing I would want if I was Matt was NO feedback.
Let’s help him out…
There was a time I made more money in a month on subs than I’d make at my real job. Since it lasted for a few months while the curve climbed, I still value this site, waiting for all to flock back to my system as I double once more. This time I actually believe thousands would subscribe if I started the same climb again.
regarding your randomized entry comment—there is viability to random entries because if you dont cherry pick trades you can insure that performance deviations going forward at least arent due to over-fitting entries, however, its hard to truly believe that a random entry system will walk-forward with similar results given that you would never choose a system that performed badly on past data to begin with—the system is a biased survivor by design (or by choosing)and if the edge is the exit (say a target), than that would theoretically need to have an over-fit variable to yield promising backtest results. I had a non-trading friend (who in a distant life was a philosophy major) look at the trading system TMG during their C2 foray in 07
.he immediately debunked their stated methodology citing egregious over-fitting—he thought that their backtest immunity would eventually be whittled away by the randomness of the future—sure enough it was—much sooner than anyone would have thought–those guys retooled though and despite a changing market, re-fit the methodology and so far so good–my circumlocutious point is that maybe it should be accepted that your portfolio of systems will constantly need ot be juggled because each one will fail at a some moment in time and finding uncorrelated, over-fit (and potentially toxic) systems may always keep you ahead of the curve so long as you are disciplined enough to cut bait when you stop sleeping at night. A profitable ‘random’ system may not be so random.
Excellent points.
I agree - it is quite probable that a system that “works” well today may not work well tomorrow.
That is one reason why I am also exploring the idea of collecting a handful of systems instead of selecting just one or two.
Think of it as building a toolkit. Based on what I want to accomplish (make consistent above-average profits over years), I’ll probably need a hammer, a screwdriver, a set of pliers and so on. Once I have assembled my toolkit, if I’m smart enough, I won’t use a hammer when the job calls for a screwdriver, etc.
So it may be with mechanized trading systems - I’ll need more than one to accomplish my task.
I think enlightened system developers will take the extra step to look deeply into their own product’s performance and identify its strengths and weaknesses and SELL it that way. That’s smart. TELL me if you have a hammer or a screwdriver. Don’t make me figure it out. It’s easier for me to buy it if I can recognize what kind of tool it is.
As a simplistic example, I know that a Short-Only system may not perform as well in a Bull market as it might in a non-trending or Bear Market. So - it’s MY job to constantly monitor the “climate” I’m in so I can identify which tool to use. I get that. Perhaps we can automation to the next level and build a system that monitors macro indicators (artificial intelligence) and can “tell” me what kind of climate I’m in and can “tell” me what kind of tool(s) will work best in that environment and actually load it and begin using it (sounds kinda cool - maybe we should build that one next!).
So perhaps the best approach is to recognize that no tool works on everything, so collect tools and use them in clusters. I believe Portfolio123 calls that style of portfolio management a “Regime-based” portfolio mgmt approach. When market indicators indicate that a certain type of market is currently in place (regime), use only those tools best suited for that environment.
Compare this to a system developer that tries to “weather” a climate in which his/her system just isn’t suited. It stumbles or crashes. No wonder. We see that here all the time. They scratch their heads, mumble something and disappear for a while. I believe what’s really going on is that the tool (system) was never going to work in all conditions but the person using the tool failed to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the tool and failed to correctly identify the climate they are currently in. Hence - product failure.
Actually, if you think about it, what engineer would build a product and NOT take to time to learn how to use, when to use, etc. Imagine someone building a microwave but not taking the time to learn that putting anything metallic in it will cause it to explode! I think that is what is happening when these young system stumble and/or crash. That’s one of the reasons they are not investment-grade yet.
I am not a trained financial systems modeler - I don’t have the experience with financial modeling theory that some of the others have, like Kevin. I do understand systematic approaches, however and I do understand code that produces repeatable results. So - I’m comfortable with mechanized systems that are repeatable. That’s maybe why I do not gravitate to anything with “random” in it. Not to say they don’t work and can’t work - I’m just not as comfortable with them.
Also - one last point regarding the role of discretion in trading systems - two words… Bernie Madoff. He will forever be my Poster Boy for why I desire 100% mechanized systems. Eliminate as many variables in a systematic model as you can (points of failure). When you cede control to anyone else, you may get Bernie Madoff. QED.
Caio.
Wow.
And for how long did that last? Now let’s stretch the timeline from the very first moment you put your first system up for sale until today. How’s the average look now? You’re giving me out-of-sample data. No. No. No.
Not fair.
Another point - as you said it… IF you start the climb again. Can you quantify what has to happen for that climb to start? What are the rules? Where will the Edge come from?
Should I pay you faithfully every month waiting for the climb to resume? What if it never does? When does your product (tool) work and when doesn’t it?
All good questions. All from a Customer’s perspective.
I’ve never lost my edge. And the system hasn’t changed since the climb started. It’s my opinion it has started again.
Should I pay you faithfully every month waiting for the climb to resume? What if it never does? When does your product (tool) work and when doesn’t it?
When does it work? When we are overbought and oversold, which is to say out of fair value ranges for the markets. If the predicted value is higher and we’re out of that fair value range, then we’ll trade. It’s mean reverting.
If you don’t have $5, I doubt you’d be on the site.
So… what’s the answer to my other questions (see last post). Come on - you threw it out there. BTW - people don’t want to pay for your opinion - they want to pay for performance.
Beau - you “predict” stuff a lot. Not sure there is much Value in predicting stuff. I don’t buy from people who predict stuff.
Just so you know - I’m also not interested in any system that the Owner feels is only worth $5 a month.
And you have NO idea when people come to the site, how much money they have. Tossing that out has no Value, either.
Here’s a suggestion, Beau - take this to heart - work on your Customer Service. Getting into verbal jousts with Customers does not put your best foot forward. Remember, this is a public Forum. EVERYTHING you say here is being read by X number of other Customers (or prospects). Every time you toss something out like your last statement above, people notice.
You’re trying to sell me and a whole bunch of other folks something. I’m not.
I think the value of your training sometimes gets lost in your behavior. Classic problem a lot of techs have. That’s why they should stay behind closed doors and polished salespeople handle Customers and the public.
I hope you take this to heart and think about what I’m saying here.
Let’s quit wasting time on this kind of stuff.
It doesn’t look like you have any intention of subscribing to anybody. The answer to your question should be obvious from the last two years of the curve compared to the S&P. Up market, down market, doesn’t matter. And your lack of understanding for what is meant by “predicted” is not a judgement call, but a quantitative measurement. This whole thread is a waste of time.
I’m going to close this thread because it is getting long and unmanageable. This is not meant to shut this discussion down. I encourage people to continue by starting a new thread.
