It would be nice, if systemowners would point out bad fills/math to Matt for correction, even when the fill/math is in their favour. It has happened to me several times and I always got it corrected for fair play.
Case in point: The system called OEX Trading System bought 1175 OEX options on 4/15. I said to myself, that is helluva lots of options for 100 K, specially that OEX options are not cheap. So I did the math. At that point the system had app. $ 147K and the price was $3.46. So after a simple divison I got the maximum number of options what he could have as 425, but the system was able to buy 1175!!! That is clearly impossible, unless I am missing something. So the correct gain should have been app. $ 26.350 or so, instead of the reported $ 73K. That is a fairly huge mistake I guess, and the systemowner should have been aware of it.
If not, that’s what I am here for… 
So let’s cut off of his gains by 47K, just to make things more even! Otherwise have a nice weekend!
Peter,
Thanks for pointing this out. I hope MK would take a note of this and rectify it, if it is in fact an unreal result.
Looking at the silence from both the system vendor and MK, makes me suspect, honestly, it is indeed an unreal result and that a lot of systems may have unreal results (MK may not have all the time to ferret it out, though I’m sure he has fixed a lot of unreal results), essentially turning us system vendors into watchdogs over each other, though the software could be re-designed more efficiently to prevent this from ever happening again in the future.
“Honesty” is the refusal to fake reality, i.e., to pretend that facts are other than they are. Pretense is impotent. It can neither erase an existent nor create one.
The virtue of honesty requires that one face the truth on every issue one deals with: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (anything less would permit faking). This is a corollary of the virtue of rationality, which requires a state of full focus. If rationality, as we may say, is the commitment to reality, then honesty is its obverse: it is the rejection of unreality. The exponent of the first acknowledges that existence exists; of the second, that only existence exists.
The man who trafficks in unreality, seeking to make it his ally, thereby makes reality his enemy. All facts are interconnected. Thus the first step of faking, like a man’s first act of evasion, leads to the next; neither practice can be contained. Ultimately, the dishonest individual comes into conflict not merely with an isolated datum, but with the realm of existence as such. His policy commits him to the invention of a competitor to existence, a growing world of unreality, like a supernatural dimension that clashes at every point with the actual world. The latter, therefore, becomes his nemesis. It becomes a time bomb waiting to explode in his face.
The man who fakes reality believes that he or others can profit thereby. The honest man does not believe it. He does not seek to obtain any value by mean of deception, whether of himself or of others. In Ayn Rand’s words, he recognizes" that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud…"
Reality is a unity; to depart from it at a single point, therefore, is to depart from it in principle and thus to play with a lighted fuse. The bomb may not go off. The liar may blank out the power of his nemesis: that which is, and may get away with any given scheme; he may win the battle. But if such are the battles he is fighting, he has to lose the war.
The first thing he loses in the process of turning irrational is his independence. The man who wages war against reality is (by definition) defying all the rules of proper epistemology. Like the man who evades in private, without social purpose, he thus subverts at the root the cognitive power of his consciousness. The con man, however, usually makes no pretense of counting on cognition in order to prosper; he counts on his ability to manipulate others. People become to him more real than the fragments of reality he still recognizes. People become his means of survival, but in a form worse than that of the typical second hander.
The liar is a parasite not on people as such, but on people who are deludable-people qua ignorant, blind, gullible. What such people believe and expect-what they expect falsely, thanks to him-this is the power he must deal with and pander to. The liar thinks he has turned others into his puppets, but his course makes him their pawn. It makes him a dependent of the lowest kind: a dependent not merely on the consciousness of others, which is bad enough, but on their unconsciousness. Such a man, in Ayn Rand’s words, is a fool - "a fool whose source of values is the fools he succeeds in fooling…"
rgds, Pal
Forget it Peter. I have brought this point up a thousand times on this board. Nothing will be said or done about it. Noone will bother. Fortunately I know there are alot of honest vendors like you out there which is why I am not disenchanted with the site as a whole. But I’d definately stay away from OEX Trading System for a long time to come.
It pains me to see subscribers give up in despair after all the hard work we system vendors are putting, the countless hours of research and development, burning the midnight oil…
Continuting my previous discourse about “Honesty”…
A similar analysis applies to every moral virtue and value. Is the liar a man of integrity? His method of action consists in eschewing moral principles and trying to get away with the fraud of the moment. Is he productive? His policy is to live not by his own creative work, but by bilking others of the fruits of theirs. Is he just? His goal is to obtain the unearned. Is he self-confident? Not if the term means confidence in one’s ability to deal with reality. Is he happy? Not if happiness presupposes moral character. Can he be proud? Only in a depraved sense: proud of his ability to delude others, to break the laws of human life, to cheat on reality and escape the consequences - which, however, he does not succeed in doing or does he?
I guess, only time can tell for sure.
rgds, Pal
I’ll figure out a way to fix this. Let’s not blame the vendor for my software’s mistakes. I’ll fix it shortly. (A little bogged down right this moment.) - Matthew
There is nothing wrong if we watch out for others instead of Matt doing all the work, after all we are in a competition.
I usually apply common sense, when I check out a system, and I expect would be subscribers to do so. So if a system usually makes 3-5K per trade and there is suddenly a huge gain compared to that, I take a closer look. Also subscribers shouldn’t count on 1-2 hugely profitable trades, but consistent and continuing winning small ones.
One other trick I apply when I evaluate a system is that I don’t count the best and worst trades. You can get a very different statistic if you do that and probably much closer to reality…
OEX is still one of the BEST sytems here.
Definately no contest there. It is one of the BEST systems without question, which is why this didn’t make any sense to me. Now I may have misjudged Gines, thinking that he purposedly let that win sit there to gain an unfair advantage over his competitors. He may have indeed inquired into it and MK was busy with other things, and if that is the case then I apologize for despairing and condeming too quickly. But the fact that this has dragged on so long increased my suspicions, but again maybe just needed patience but it sure seemed like I was being ignored and silenced.
P.S. And I’m not a competing vendor so I have nothing to gain out of this anyway. I just want to see fair play and high standards maintained here due to my unstinting love for the work and concept being done here at C2.
Agreed. Also, I would take a look at the average trading length of the system. For e.g., day-trading (ultra short-term) upto 2 days in Avg. trade length, short-term (2-10 days), long-term (10-64 days) and ultra long-term (> 64 days). This way one would be comparing systems more realistically according to the investors needs whose investing style varies depending on his holding period. It is unfortunate we lack such clear classifications (except for day-trading) at C2.
ps: The best systems right now in the long-term category (10-64 days average trade length) is Midas Long-Term Value and contrary to its name the second best is the Midas Short-Term Value. Free trial periods of 14 days is available for subscribers. Also a Forex Hedge Fund (minimum investment US $100,000 handled by fxcm.com) is available for high net worth investors at my website theRootofAllGoodisMoney.com
rgds, Pal
Midas Long-Term Value
Midas Short-Term Value
TheRootofAllGoodisMoney.com
