'I do not personally subscribe to “reversion to the mean” philosophy. I have never seen evidence that the markets remembers how a system does (well or poorly) and then average it back to “normal.” '
Yeah - what I was trying to say is that many inexperienced investors look at recent performance of mutual funds and hope they will get similar performance in the future. With mutual funds the best performers one year are often the worst performers the next year. Many subscribers probably pick C2 systems in a similar fashion and discover that past performance is not necessarily an indication of future performance.
"people constantly report they cannot reproduce the results Futures Truth that reports"
I have long suspected that Futures Truth is interested in selling their reports (a conflict of interest).
"I am definitely not in this for up to 33% annually"
Yes I understand that many at C2 are interested in very high rate of return. That is what attracted them to C2. On the other hand most potential subscribers come to C2 and subsequently leave because they hit a land mine or at least detected land mines.
"Your assumption is correct. So what? Idiots are the market meat "
As long as that attitude persists then C2 will be for a few elite traders. I have seen several posts in the past by system providers observing that there is a lack of subscribers. A lack of subscribers ultimately leads to lack of providers. You can figure out the rest.
In general I agree Steve totally. He and I (Legendary Stock Portfolio) run good systems in stocks with a steady and stable performance. The more experience the more you get the conclusion what is the best for your money. Mostly the explosive systems works not sustainable.
Steady performance through a superior system is the key for wealth management. Thats means a lot of work at first, but later you have your own systematical approach which produces good performances. The most of the investors don´t look at the companies homepage or the quarterly reports etc.! They buy the mood of the market and get average or bad performances.
"In general I agree Steve totally. He and I (Legendary Stock Portfolio) run good systems in stocks with a steady and stable performance."
I don’t think you can say this yet. Neither has established a C2 track record long enough I would consider steady or stable.
"Yes I understand that many at C2 are interested in very high rate of return. That is what attracted them to C2. On the other hand most potential subscribers come to C2 and subsequently leave because they hit a land mine or at least detected land mines. "
Most potential subscribers haven’t a clue how to pick a system. Some of us have tried to answer or do some rough guidance for new C2 folks, but leveraged trading is like the Pied Piper. People aren’t really looking for 33% annually, but quarterly or even monthly.
On the other hand, most vendors haven’t a clue how to provide a system. I would say if you take the top 20 systems at any one time, perhaps 0-2 actually outperform. The rest utilize magic, luck, skullduggery, money mismanagement or leverage to make the equity curve look good. I remain amazed when a person with a 10 day track record is trying to figure out where the subs are.
Steve Auger
As long as that attitude persists then C2 will be for a few elite traders.
Well… I give you few facts. When I started Tango at C2 there weren’t realistic stocks systems from my point of view. At the moment there are nearly dozen of profitable, tradeable and realistic systems in stocks. Again, from my point of view 
I have seen several posts in the past by system providers observing that there is a lack of subscribers.
(sigh) If I was able to find subscribers for Tango. And the system requires a lot of TC, it’s out of books, because it violates most of rules that you can read in trading books. Finally, it’s psychologically hard to trade. So my assumption is that the complaining system providers didn’t provide anything lol
Eu
(The whole thread is off-topic, and this post too)
"I do not personally subscribe to "reversion to the mean" philosophy. I have never seen evidence that the markets remembers how a system does (well or poorly) and then average it back to "normal." I would say that systems that do well in their infancy and fall apart, only demonstrate that they had some initial luck, and then reverted to randomness." (Ross)
That is a good description of the usual statistical explanation for "reversion to the mean": reverting to randomness after an exceptional performance. It cannot be traded. I think this is often the case, but note that the description of extreme-os says that it is based on a reversion to the mean principle. Regardless of the slippage that subscribers may have, the track record of this system shows that its picks are considerably better than random.
Ok Eu New: "if you trade goos system you don’t need any money from C2’s subscribers. So number of subscribers are irrelevant for you"
Therefore why TS buildier put the system on C2?
To many, "reversion to the mean" is more of an evening up - a system that outperforms suddenly does poorly (rather than randomly), to bring it back to the average. My point is, that the market does not have a memory, so classical reversion to the mean is a myth.
It would be like a run of 100 coin flips, and 70% were heads. Reversion to the mean (to some people) would be if the next 100 coin flips were 30% heads, so the overall result were about 50% heads, as probability dictates. This is what I say is false.
My point is that many traders use the term "reversion to the mean" inaccurately. The assumption that a coin will compensate 70% heads by 30% heads is indeed false, but I would call that the "gamblers fallacy". Reversion to the mean implies that it reverts to 50%, which is true. The problem is that some people interpret reversion to the mean (which is true, but of no use) erroneously as an evening up (which is false, but would be useful if it were true), in which case it becomes the gamblers fallacy.
As for the markets, personally I think that it is safer to assume that they do not have a memory, but this is less obvious than in the case of a coin. Market prices are determined by persons who do have a memory - unlike coins. It would be irrational if their memory influenced the prices, but this is an economic law and not a physical law. As far as the efficient market hypothesis is true it would be impossible to exploit this, but this is less certain than when you flip a coin. There are many studies that say that the efficient market hypothesis is true, but the fact alone that there are so many people who found it worthwhile to investigate this indicates that its validity is less obvious.
> I remain amazed when a person with a 10 day track record is trying to figure out where the subs are.
Asking about the potential number of subscribers a good system might attract currently at C2 is hardly the same thing as wondering “where the subs are.” The former is an attempt to determine if offering a system here is even worth the effort. The latter is wondering why an existing system has no (or few) subscribers.
It’s always a good idea to determine the size of a market before trying to capture a percentage of market share.
-Raystonn
the 10 day comment was not directed at anyone in particular.
My first comment (to your post) was a relatively accurate summarization of what I have seen over the last year plus here…
eugenio ramassotto
Therefore why TS buildier put the system on C2?
No particular reason is a reason Actually you had to answer on the question yourself before putting your system on C2.
Eu
People aren’t really looking for 33% annually, but quarterly or even monthly. - Ross, et-al.
I say et-al because several people in this thread have opined that a high rate of return is unattainable on a consistent basis. These same people consider a steady 35% to 50% return per annum as unrealistic and unsustainable. All I can say is… I’m glad I didn’t mentor with you!
All I have to say is you’re all about to be completely stunned by my system. I’ve always considered anything less than 100% a month to be shit…so I have very high standards. My system exceeds my standards. But I’m not going to tell you which one it is. You can find it yourself.
I’m currently attracting more and more people here through Ebay(because I’m selling a demo of my system on Ebay) and in a month or so I may start using adwords to attract people too.
If you’re going to complain about the lack of subscribers but not do anything about it yourself, then you’re retarded and I wouldn’t trust you with my money in the first place.
Nicholas
It’s all relative to the amount of risk a system takes. Profits by themselves are not very informative. Hawk-fx is up >600% with a track record close to 2 years. Flyin Pink Pig up >2800% after about 10 months. Few people however would appreciate the risks these systems take in terms of return volatilities. It would be more impressive if you can confirm your system can maintain a Sharpe ratio >2 over at least one year (something which none of the currently available forex systems on C2 can show).
"I’ve always considered anything less than 100% a month to be shit…so I have very high standards. My system exceeds my standards."
You’re only trading one system here. It is up 4.5% in about half a month. We’ll see if you can sustain that rate of return over the long run 
"But I’m not going to tell you which one it is. You can find it yourself."
Which of your trading systems or which of your standards? Can’t be your trading systems because you only have one on C2.
Kudos to you for marketing your system on EBAY. Let’s hope you aren’t selling snake oil.
"These same people consider a steady 35% to 50% return per annum as unrealistic and unsustainable. All I can say is… I’m glad I didn’t mentor with you! "
Good for you if you are obtaining high rates of return long term. Evidence available publicly doesn’t support high returns. There may be a few elite traders who can - but what risks are they taking and is this suitable for unsophisticated potential subscribers?
If you’re going to complain about the lack of subscribers but not do anything about it yourself, then you’re retarded and I wouldn’t trust you with my money in the first place. - Nicholas Engleman
If you can’t get something as simple as quote attribution correct when responding, then you’re retarded and I wouldn’t trust you with my money in the first place.
Since you put up the kind offer, this is my analysis
– I read the ebay writeup. I am no forex trader, but your wording/claims are putting you on a collision course with their version of the CFTC/SEC. Your Ebay ads have no hypothetical disclaimer, so even if you hit the big time, you may wind up facing a court date.
– The rest of the wording puts you in the class of the Flying Pink Pig. I see ZERO comprehension of risk:reward. I will be stunned if you are still here in 12 months.
– You have been at it since May 2006? I see that as barely getting started. 100% monthly minimum? To what end, pride or disciplined profit?
I maintain an open mind, but so far, I see a perfect 0% success rate of those who think they have climbed Everest on a Sunday afternoon, equipped with little more than shorts/T-shirt and a bag lunch.
About 3 months later, we get a “whoops” event, where the confident trader disappears into the waves. Anyone see Jonny L Primetime or 3 ES Points a Day Rinaldo anymore? Brash and bold, they knew better than all, and I didn’t even get invited to the memorial services…
But believe it or not, I am rooting for you. There is a first time for everything
