Man I wish we could comment on Subscriber Reviews

Subscriber Review on Sygnaux Forex: "There is a lot to learn from this approach. No system wins always. Stick with the strategy with a tight stop loss and you will win in the long run. Keep up with the good work. It is doing fine."

After a 7 month trading history, stats of: Profit Factor 1.1… total max DDs 11 times bigger than Net Profits… Profits after realism & commission of $0.00 What exactly is to be learned???

Sometimes I wonder what subscribers are looking at… ???

Hehe. Man I wish we could comment on Subscriber Reviews lol It’s review for well known Hawk :wink:

"April 26, 2007 Reviewer: Subscriber to system

The biggest problem here is possibly a C2 problem. This site is doing a better than ever job of showing the true colors of these systems; but, with this one, it came too late. It is too easy for a newbie to identify such systems as good without looking at the detail in these comments."

Any stats have a lag. It’s not C2 problem of estimation of stats lag, because C2 cannot forecast the future. Nobody can. C2 only can independently tracks trades and provides some stats. Period. It’s part of intelligence of a subscriber to grab something meaningful and hopefully profitable from the chaos of numbers.


Broadsword Forex review.

"Doing well so far but keep in mind that it’s still a young system (<1 year and 66 trades). These are the kind of stats I like: Avg Win $3,757 Avg Loss $1,901 With these the win% can be well below 50% and still the system makes good money. Surprisingly many systems in C2 try to maximize the win% taking very small profits and then letting one loser trade wipe out all the gains. This guy is professional enough not to pay attention to win% but making money instead."

There is astonished coincidence. The guys just change their subscription fees and… we have very positive review lol


A Review of DCA Scatter Level I

"I believe for a system that is free it is performing fairly well, small looses compare to win. I have been with this system for a month now. Looking forward to see its developing potential."

It’s very touching. Something that Nils Bejerot described as Stockholm Syndrome.


P.S. …and pls don’t be so cynical and say that the review is fake :wink:

"Something that Nils Bejerot described as Stockholm Syndrome."

Funny. I have no idea who Nils Berejot is, but I used the Stockholm Syndrome about year ago to describe the relation between some subscribers and a loosing system. Of course I can’t know if it applied in that particular case, but is funny to know that others saw that similarity too.

Well… to be honest Who is first introduced term of “Stockholm Syndrome” is very questionable. At least I don’t know an answer for the priority. I just read the guy and as well as you I found a lot of correlations with hmm… let’s say “managed trading” and the syndrome.

I would agree the correlation is funny.


I think this is grossly unfair and frankly I don’t appreciate the inference that there is some impropriety involved. Your comments also make no sense whatsoever, you’re implying that because I RAISED my subscription fees I got a positive review? How on earth is that logical?

A month or so ago in order to continue the growth of my trading as a business and with the addition of 3 new funds I felt the time was right to pass on some of the cost to the subscribers who had enjoyed consistently successful performance for just $10 a month until that point. The person who penned the review has been with me from the very beginning and when he was the first to continue at the new rate, assuming he must be happy with things after 6 months I asked if he would he consider writing a review. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, reviews can only be written by subscribers and I am afterall running a business, and like any business if I have satisfied customers then why wouldn’t I ask them for a testimonial.

I have worked very hard to build myself a track record on here over the last 9 months and I have throughout kept my head down and grafted. I haven’t made outlandish claims or behaved improperly at any stage, and despite my years of experience I have done what several prominent figures on this forum demand of newcomers and quietly got on with building a track record and running a business, I didn’t even post on this forum for at least 6 months until I felt I had reached a point at which I had earned some respect and had a record I could happily defend, therefore at this stage I don’t feel I should have to tolerate this kind of peurile behaviour from anyone least of all you, you do your reputation and record no credit with this sort of mindless comment.

Matthew, I double His wish as well as turn it into a request.

I believe that Subscribers are the only one who can show the true colors of a system, But what if subscribers review are misleaded?

Think about it, I could simply sign in with a different accounts and subscribe with differnt credit cards and throw bunch of (Very Positive) reviews on my system.

I think being able to comment on reviews is a Must :wink:


Jon, The first I give my quote "There is astonished coincidence. The guys just change their subscription fees and… we have very positive review"

Webster dictionary:

“Function: noun

1 : the act or condition of coinciding

2 : the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection; also : any of these occurrences”

(sign) There wasn’t any accusation in anything of the reviewer or the system from my side. I’m not responsible for your interpretations of my words :wink: However it’s my opinion and I found the coincidence very funny. I’d like to remind you first amendment


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


You know you presents at C2 is protected by it :wink:


I would agree, I’m clueless, mindless, arrogant person with bad taste of humor. Moreover, I’m nobody from nowhere with 0 years trading experience (You can read it on my “my analyst page.” ) So don’t worry, you’re the market guru. I accept and admit it. Relax.


P.S. One of funniest things at C2 it’s ego parade. lol

The latest one on extreme-os is very confusing to me:

What is going on? BTO 6,000 NTY 42.26 6/19/07 10:19 0 40.48 (09:32t) ($126,779) He only had 700K and he LOST ($10,680) so far? BTO 10,000 FLML 23.33 6/19/07 15:10 0 0.00 (17:14t) ($116,649) And of that original 700K, he also lost ($233,300)? BTO 5,000 CHKE 40.81 6/20/07 13:16 0 0.00 (16:13t) ($102,025) And likewise Collective2 says he lost another ($204,050)? This much is real–I had $25000 last week, middle, when I turned autotrading and now I am down 6% already. I have shutdown autotrading in emergency until Collective2’s computers and Extreme_os get back up and working like it used to.

The reviewer seems to imply that the system lost $233,300 and $204,050 in its hypothetical C2 account, which is simply not true.

I often get the feeling that System Reviews are little better than dogs barking in a petstore window…

Recent review of ATFutures:

June 25, 2007 Reviewer: AutoTrader of system Not really good…

The system hasn’t traded for about 5 weeks (May 21) , and this autotrader suddenly feels the need to give this review?

"Odds of a winning trade with this system are little better than flipping a coin. 55% Its not really doing what the provider claims at all “with a Long trade-to-trade win % of 83.3%, a Short trade-to-trade win % of 77.4%” that suggests doubtful backtesting."

The above is a review of the TMG system, and an incredibly naive one in my opinion. Let me first state that I have no opinion on the merits of the system itself, I am merely commenting on the review of the system.

It may well be correct to say that the strike rate is less than the vendor had suggested but this is surely offset by the fact that the average win is twice the average loss making for a very respectable system even with a win rate “little better than flipping a coin”, in fact I would venture in terms of percent return it is still likely to be very respectable. If the avg win were significantly less than the avg loss (as I suspect most 80% win rate systems are) then I would be worried if the win rate fell to 55%, but with the win/loss avgs as they are without knowing anything else about the system I would suggest it is still ‘within range’.

People seem to forget that systems statistics are not set in stone, to expect the backtest results to produce the same results going forward in perpetuity is hopelessly misguided, these things evolve and a good system if founded on solid principles should be able to adapt to a changing environment and remain profitable, unfortunately it’s subscribers if anything like the one here might not be so adaptable.


If only MK would give us our wish of reviewing the reviewers.

Even the clownfish get eaten once in awhile. After all, although he found Nemo, the Daddy fish lost his wife and 399 eggs…

"If only MK would give us our wish of reviewing the reviewers."

Well we effectively already are on this thread aren’t we? If the purpose is merely to discuss them then wouldn’t this forum suffice?. If it’s to regulate then the vendor himself already has the ability to issue a rebuttal to a negative review and in those cases I think it’s right that it should just be between vendor and reviewer/subscriber, and it’s also right that only a subscriber can post a review in the first place. The only area not covered is potential abuse where a vendor or collaborator acting as a subscriber writes a positive review, but that would be very difficult for anyone but MK to prove.

How about this one (TMG):

Great system. They had a rough time for a while this spring but tweaked the system on 5/7/07. Since then the system has been right 11 in a row.

This doesn’t seem consistent with what the trade-by-trade statistics show, which is a max of 5 times being “right” (i.e. winning) in a row. Or perhaps the reviewer is double-counting?

I had also wondered about that one…

Since then the system has been right 11 in a row.

The reviewer meant days right in a row, not trades right

in a row.

Since the re-optimized system started trading 20070507

it has had 47% winning trades and is up about 5%, about

on a par with buy and hold, with higher volatility.

I see, thanks for pointing out.

"It seems that everyone ranks this system as 5 star so far. I’d like to voice some concerns about it. True, we had some nice rides for the last month, that is why everybody likes it. But every system has its ups and downs. We are having some serious downs right now and I hope people can have more balanced view on it."

A 3-star reviewer speaking about a quite profitable forex system with good stats and a nice equity curve during a small drawdown.

I think what some subscribers want, is a system that makes 300% a year, and is totally automatic and completely risk free…