It doesn’t matter whether it is martingale or not , what matters is that the system was risky .
1 Like
You had another big DD at May from 60K to 16.5K .
1 Like
No subscriber should be put through a 45K drawdown on a strategy that the developer starts with around 10k. Thats insane and shows that the developer just creates systems that use leverage and martingaling to go all in and hope to get lucky and attract new subscribers thinking they have found a solid system only to be completely wiped out.
1 Like
One thing that one needs to be careful of is - when one sees a closed trade of size 30 contracts. It could mean either of the following:
- Trader averaged down to 30 contracts and then closed them out gradually OR
- Trader never had more than 5 contracts on - but was just closing partials (say 2 contracts) and putting them back on.
The difference is known only when one looks at the actual trades executed for whats listed as a trade of size 30.
That being said martingale is a strategy that will never work out eventually.
1 Like
Ascendant VX. Wtf? There is a brand new one and the old one has now disappeared. FRAUD ALERT!
1 Like
A number of years ago Matthew made it so that any failed system could be viewed even if it was killed and/or no longer accepted any subscribers. That no longer seems to be the case!
Here is the old system: https://collective2.com/system90325769
which displays a blank screen with the message: “System not accepting new subscribers”, “This system is currently not allowing any new subscribers and thus is not visible to the public.”
Here is the new system: https://collective2.com/system99007414
which hasn’t blown up yet and will gladly accept $350 per month from anyone who thinks the new and improved version will have a better chance for success (if they could even ever know about the old system which is no longer shown in the vendor’s list of visible systems!).
1 Like
This is just a quick follow up on the warning we gave about the Ascendant martingale systems that were ranked at the top of the C2 Leading Systems for many months. The currently catastrophic drawdown is what we were predicting would happen given methodology used and the fate of the other systems by the developer. The chart tells the story:
5 Likes
Beware of anything from a firm that takes down their strategy each time it crashes and puts up a new one.
One particular firm probably has several strategies brewing behind the scenes and when they get a good one with a track record they make it public. Then when it fails they take it down and put up a new one. No stops have been seen and they never seem to sell until the instrument is profitable or nearing expiration.
Seems very shady - do not risk your money on a strategy that does not have stops and never seems to want to take a loss - and only sells when nearing expiration.
2 Likes
Or just stick with systems that are TOS certified. Unless they happen to be the prince of Monaco we know Ascendant is not trading their prop systems and instead just raking in money off of high subscription fees until the system blows up, then rinse and repeat.
1 Like
And the pain continues for the former #1 leading martingale system–About $2.5 Million real dollars of subscriber money lost while the developer pockets at least $16,000/mo minus C2 commissions. Subscribers beware: 
3 Likes
Zero T looks questionable IMO.
1 Like
Martingale system is mathematically proven to break anyone with 100% certainty unless we are under the assumption of infinite wealth for the users. If that is the case, systems running under this reinvestment model should be banned permanently and probably not publicized.
1 Like
What about systems trading without a stop , should they be banned as well ? Cuz they will fail eventually no matter what .
In this case a lot of systems will be banned here. 
I don’t know about your knowledge of C2 systems or expertise, but banning systems that do not use stops is bad advice. Stops are a form of very expensive insurance. Proper money management and reduced leverage are the keys.
Regarding Martingale systems, theoretically they work if you have a statistical edge and virtually unlimited capital. Think of how a casino works. If a C2 system doesn’t have an edge, they will fail no matter what money management system they use. Same goes for over-leveraged systems.
2 Likes
It was just an argument against banning risky martingale systems , the notion that a risky trading method - that would fail eventually - should be banned is not practical as it will lead to banning other types of trading as well , for example: trading without stops which will lead to failure for sure .
1 Like
How about a flag, similar to the TOS badge, if a strategy is:
- Increasing position on a worse price (i.e. when done infrequently)
- Using the API for orders
- Using Emails for orders
anything else?
Zulutrade has some of these and I consider them far less professional than C2. They also flag systems that have a high win ratio as that usually indicates excessive left tail risk, but that’s probably too much of a stretch.
This is not correct. Systems that does not used stop as GSP nicely explained can be addressed at the portfolio level for instance using anti correlated systems and others techniques. Following your line of reasoning then also systems that carry positions overnight and thus unable to guarantee a limited loss should not be allowed which frankly does not make any sense.
Finally a last comment on avg down a position: Averaging down is completely fine when a stop loss is in charge to guarantee a defined Max loss in case It will be hit. At the end is a kind of martingale system but not in his purest form as It appear some developers has decided to employ on their systems under the assumption that their subscribers have infinite wealth .
You didn’t understand my comments . I dont think that systems trading without stops shouldn’t be allowed .
Never mind… Have a good week end!
