Do you need more proof than that?

According to, the average daily volume on AAPL options: 169,550

Realism Factor received on that trade (1-25-06) - a paltry 23% - for a mere 200 contracts, because of the “volume factor”. Lovely.

Here’s another example to prove to you of how inaccurate and off the–wall your algorithm is (of course you already knew that):

Volume on TIE options trade on average of only 3550 daily, yet some how your RF gave that trade (110 contracts) a whopping 100 %. Hmmmm

Let’s see; CSCO options trade on average of 53,310 (some15 times that of TIE). The trade on 1-20-06 received a mere 7.82% of realism. Do you need more proof??? Sorry, but I can’t stop laughing.

BTW, many numerous examples from my closed trade log show the same errors (doesn’t even include other option traders records). Now you know why I was advising you for the last 2 months to show an RF value for every single trade rather than a collective score. My suspicion of your incorrect logic proved to be correct all along. Even my computer science, Princeton University bound child agrees with me on that point (surprisingly though

As long as RF continues to rely on historical volume among other factors rather than available liquidity at the moment of execution, it will continue to be a false misrepresentation of what can actually be filled. Matthew, the way you have it programmed now is like saying if I send 200 options of AAPL to the mm’s, they will only fill 23%, the rest can NEVER be filled. How could that be logical??? I just don’t get it. I tell you, if my system deserve a low score, I will be the first one to accept. I’m very good at taking the good the bad and the very ugly. But really this is just not making sense at all.

Is it really that difficult to get fixed once and for all???


I agree with you. Many parameteres at C2 don’t make sense at all.

Here’s the latest example… Today’s trade on AAPL atm options that I closed in different chunks received just 43%. Did you know that this specific option had a trading volume of 19,693 just today. I took a snap shot of the bid/ask size and each side had over 2500. So why did I get just 43%???

That’s right Dave, The forex traders get all the candy and we get the left overs even though our performance is in the top 1%. Forex RF score will always be higher than 85% and what do you think the first thing potential subscribers look at when they evaluate our systems…yep you got it… the mighty RF. It’s right at the top. Even Matthew responded recently to a subscriber by encouraging him/her that to evalute a system,… to use the RF score… when they were having a difficult time deciding, Yet they’re not told how inaccurate it is. So they pass us up and go to who?..Forex. Is that really fair???. I have nothing against forex traders. Infact, there are some exceptional ones right here (you know who you are).

Sadly, a level playing field does not exist for option traders when customers are deciding on the right system based on RF.(unless your trading QQQQ options…and why??..because of large histroical volume)

I would try to make a wild guess here. ^_^.

Matthew wants to trade good option trading systems. He does not want subscriber to compete with him for filling. So he let the RF of option system low so the subscriber will stay away. Then it is easier for him to autotrade your system.

Just a joke. lol.

hahahahahahaha…good joke.

Here’s what I’d like to see!!! I’d like to see all of the system providers trade their own picks, and be able to prove it when asked. Then, they simply send their account records to Matthew with the private information blanked out, and they have proof that they got filled. What we have here are theoretical numbers that potential subscribers are asked to evaluate in order to make a decision on whether to subscribe. Then, you guys expect Matthew to take these theoretical trades and make sense out of them, and apply a RF to them? And, then you get mad when you think his RF is unjustified. Why don’t you actually TRADE a zillion option contracts in your own account and see what your fill is? Then, you’d have proof positive. As it is, the subscribers (me) don’t get filled many times at anywhere close to what’s posted. Matthew is just trying to help the subscribers who fork out their hard earned cash make some sense of the system he may be looking at. So, if Matthew’s RF factor was wrong, what was YOUR real fill? Oh, I forgot, you don’t actually place the trades. It’s play money.

The joke is on both of you. This is clear that you don’t like C2/Matthew and you keep complaining. But what do you do? You still STAY! Now THAT is a joke and you look like idiots for using something you openly declare that you don’t like.

Why would anyone keep on using something you don’t like and don’t agree with? If you don’t like it here, take your business elsewhere. You don’t, because C2 doesn’t need you; you need C2.

No need to for insulting language guy. Really.

Not so funny anymore when you realize the joke is on you, isn’t it?

Oh, and please don’t put words in mymouth. I do like Matthew. This thread is Algo.exclusive that is in dire need of a major rethinking. It’s as simple as that. I don’t need C2. My life/income does not depend on it at all. I enjoy posting my trades and get held accountable for it. That much I do enjoy.

Dont’t you think Matthew needs feeback? Let me tell you. We are system developers, we are testing C2 and helping C2 to improve.

Wait a minute, let me tell you. I have several hundred emails communicating with Matthew. I helped a lot on C2 improvement. I found many C2 bugs and Matthew fixed it. Also I have many good suggestions for C2.

If there is bugs in C2, should we feed back to Matthew? or not?

I did so much, what did you do? hmmmmm.


I do trade the the same trades I post on C2 in my real account, but on a smaller size though. I can take a capture screen of my real fills and show you if you like. I have no problem with it.

The idea that you mentioned btw is a good one indeed. I know someone right now who is working on it so, you will see it hopefully soon.

I am a trader. From Tarek Katbi’s tracking record, I can see he/she is a good trader.

Correct. Our honest feed back is very important to insure the success of this site or the next one that will be coming. I’m sure Matthew wouldn’t want us to give him lies about our opinions.

I assume part of the answer is whether you’re using market or limit orders. Also, you do not list the volume for the specific option classes in most of your examples, just the overall volume.

In a perfect world, limit order realism would be judged by whether or not the ask price ever equaled the limit in the case of options that were bid. If it did, a fill is realistic, if not, then a fill isn’t realistic. But that might be asking for too much data.

"As it is, the subscribers (me) don’t get filled many times at anywhere close to what’s posted."

That’s right. In many cases, the subscribers can get a BETTER price than what C2 posts. I enter only market orders, so the only thing that comes into play in my RF is volume. The way C2 treats volume RF is absolutely ridiculous. I do personally trade my signals, and I get a better price just as often as a worse price. It all evens out in the end, but the RF assumes the worst case scenereo. Suscribers need to realize that.


I’m not trying to beat this thing to death, but I just noticed something: The RF for BTS Value Trend is 50.8. However, every single closed trade has a RF that is higher than that. How can the overall RF be lower than every single trade RF? I’m thoroughly confused.


I’m wondering if he’s multiplying all the individual RFs together like you would do to calculate probabilities. If so, then all trading systems will eventually have a zero RF, unless ALL trades are 100%!

Wow, the last trade received 100% RF and rightfully so because the size of the bid in the real market was larger than the trade being executed at that moment. Matthew, If you fixed the problem, hats off to you man, well done, but then again am I celebrating too early?