I, too, am curious, since this looks like a remarkable performer. What is wrong with the following stats? What am I missing? Anyone else trade Gold Survivor Eurex Brk?
Realism Factor 100.0
Trades 95
Profitable 62
Losses 33
Win % 65.3%
APD Ratio 0.67
Correlation w/ S&P -0.081
Cumu $ $61,388
after typical commission $60,908
and real-life slippage $60,908
Keep after worst-case slippage 100.0%
Avg Win $1,837
Avg Loss $1,592
Profit Factor 2.2:1
P/L per unit $624.39
after typical commission $621.89
after real-life slippage $621.89
Avg Trade Length 3.5 hours
Compound Annual % 393.6% over 243 days
Sharpe Ratio 4.171
Max Drawdown 17.96% (20081111 to 20081119)
Risk of 20% account loss 0.0%
Risk of 50% account loss 0.0%
Risk of 100% account loss 0.0%
System certainly is on fire and running on ALL cylinders.
The only thing I can take away from it is age. It has worked well from July 2008 until now. Of Michele’s past 30 systems some have not worked longer than a similar period (or trading was stopped or both), while many others continue to flourish.
That would be the only drawback (not the $395 monthly fee), since if you subscribed and made some gains - - they may cease in the near-term if vendor pulls the plug on it.
Regards,
Gilbert
[LINKSYSTEM_35446586]
The publisher basically throws a lot of chaff into the air. So something always has to look good. Try putting a nail into the ground at what it looks like now, and come back in 6 weeks (equity curve + its stats). You will likely have illumination.
The far and away main problem at C2, is people keep getting dazzled by the "top performers" lists. I have said this many times - if 500 systems are tracked, then 10 are automatically in the top 2%. But it does not mean any of them are any good. If you see 10 good looking systems today, I almost can guarantee you that 9 or 10 of them will not be doing that in a few months. And if they do, it is usually because they start averaging down and Hold&Hoping to keep the equity curve attractive, bringing down the stats, especially APD. That is why I invented APD (for my own use, first) - it divides bone from marrow - showing behavior that is hard to hide when doing equity curve gadgetry.
I understand that reasoning for “new” systems that are a few days to weeks old. The systems that jump out of the gate always get the attention, and we all sadly watch as little lambs get lead to the eventual slaughter. I actually prefer systems that have a little trouble at the start, since it gives some indication of what the vendor does in rough times - does he “hold and hope” or increase leverage, or does he “plan the trade, and trade the plan”? But the “new new thing” will always get the attention - look at the US fascination with diet plans (the newer ones get all the attention, if you use magazines at supermarket checkout stands as your guide).
That said, for the system in question, it has been doing very well for 35 weeks, and maybe in 6 weeks it will falter, but maybe it won’t. Maybe the vendor got it right with this one after other failures, maybe not. Who knows?
Subscribers have it very tough - not only do they have to select a system based on what they can see (stats, equity curve), but also what they cannot see (odds that system success was due to random luck, odds of a market shift that will make system logic no longer valid, change in the mental state of the vendor, etc.). I guess that’s why I develop my own systems - at least if/when one fails, I only have myself to blame.
Agree with previous post… One needs to just look at systems with initial spectacular returns that grab attention, those are the ones likely to crash and burn. Nice and Steady is the way to go, there is no other way…
With my contra-trading system, after 4 months 12 have hit my 15% STOP rule, while 10 "winners" have hit my ADD target having dropped 20%. 8 have been removed due to inactivity (vendor abandoned) or no longer supported.
Again $2,500 is placed into 10 high-flying systems [1-3 month double or triple gainers), which of course populating the "most-looked at" list at the homepage. If a system position meets my ADD criteria an additional $2,500 is "invested".
I guess the key is knowing when to pull the plug on a system. That is if one is interesting to embark on the journey or "road to riches".
To me (imho) it is a fruitless act to place oneself in a position to try and spare the "lambs". We all know human nature. People tend to do what they want. Trading is SO counter-intuitive to our nature that to invest in these systems may actually be a quick way to learn the "hard way"!
Happy tanking!
Regards,
Gilbert
[LINKSYSTEM_35446586]
FWIW: the "system" is up 20% with less than 5% DD. Without too much effort or subscription costs. Systems are usually removed before free trial is up.
Compound that!
gA
[LINKSYSTEM_37449582]
if a vendor has “a” system that looks good and a bunch (25+ I believe) that are meandering, then that IS the issue. He has become his own little sideshow, selling subscriptions to whichever tends to look good, but will probably wilt soon. Then he hopes another will look good to sell that one. He doesn’t care. As lnog as ONE looks like it makes money,…
There is nothing to this system. The money will be wasted. It is simply probability, that this one looks good this week. One will probably ALWAYS look good "this week."
I am surprised that you did not see this. It is simple a variant on Survivorship Bias
Index: "I am surprised that you did not see this. It is simple a variant on Survivorship Bias."
Yes, I saw this originally, which is why I asked you the questions I did:
"If this system was not part of a larger stable of systems, would you like it then? What specifically don’t you like about this particular system? "
The issue with Survivorship Bias is that it could be argued for any system on C2, or anywhere else. Its easier to see here because this vendor has 30 systems, but every developer who has been doing this a while has to have more than a few “skeletons” in his/her closet. That could mean ANY good systems are a result of this bias, and reflect nothing more than random luck.
This, if true, is quite unsettling, to developers and subscribers alike…
Unsettling, and very possible true…
Hardly, take a look at the 30 systems. How many are very long term with very high Calmar? Many.
That puts them way up on the list of systems that have “survived” for YEARS (top 10). Very few (less than 50) have even a $1 gain after 1 year. Michele has many systems longer than this.
How many were traded with gains for months or years and were closed - equity curves still in tact with gains? Many.
How many look entirely miserable? Very few - one is in my contra-strategy portfolio. . .but I’m definitely not certain that it will fall much more.
Lastly, what rating does vendor have? Almost perfect. In other words a total of 30 systems are being managed in a fashion that C2 deems greatly appropriate.
Costs too high? Perhaps, but vendor has made C2 a gold mine.
Jealous? No. But the system in question is simply fabulous (at this juncture).
IMHO
Gilbert
[LINKSYSTEM_30875056]
"This, if true, is quite unsettling, to developers and subscribers alike… "
This is the central truth of C2, that very few seem to grasp. The top lists, the best lists, the most popular, the most subscribed, the Hot hands, the systems that seem to be the "one"…
Are not systems that should be subscribed to. Because chances are over 90% (and perhaps near 98%) of these "top" systems do not work. They are simply the systems that are the top 2-3% of the 500 or so tracked because of pure probability that SOME systems had to be the top 2-3%.
The only value of all this, is to suggest to people that they should put all these above "good" systems into their "remote possibility" list. Once they have their list of systems, the most important thing on C2 is, DO THEY KEEP DOING THIS FOR A SIGNIFICANT LENGTH OF TIME AFTER "BEING WATCHED." I mean many weeks or several months, not a few days.
Once a person makes their interesting 20-30 systems list, they need to give this list several months. They will likely find that there are none left, maybe 1-2. If so, now, you MIGHT have something worth subscribing to. Worthwhile means, the equity curve AND the stats continued profitably.
Problem is, most people sign right up, and then complain "it stopped working!" It "stopped" because it was lucky, not good.
This is more important than anything else on C2. Everything else, is mostly smoke and mirrors, advertising, forum/chat discussions, opinion, etc.
