Market is Math and Levels

Where on earth did I say that??

I simply said that if a system is consistently losing money, then betting against that system is the optimal move.

The fact that the market can whipsaw us all day is totally irrelevant here.

I am not picking on you (sorry if I gave you that impression), we are just exchanging trading ideas and concepts here.

Indeed… 77.3% drawdown due to a refusal to use stop-losses (while privately touting that he maintains a 5% stop typically, and 10% worst-case). He’s yet another example of someone who thinks he’s smarter than the markets, while employing an infantile Martingale technique in a failed effort to mitigate losses.

Regardless of gains, I don’t take any system that doubles down on a losing position seriously. It may be able to survive a few bad trades, but the temporal window will come (like these past weeks) where the market will prove it has deeper pockets than the naive system developer who uses this strategy.

There’s a reason C2Star certification explicitly warns of disqualification for using said technique.

Would you still like for me to start a simulation? Your strategies have become worthless at a much quicker pace than I stated.

??

Indexmomentum (the person who started this thread) is the system developer, not me.

I guess those math and levels are harder than he thought.
Is this the fastest 85% drawdown from forum posting in C2 history?

3 Likes

There were some poor subs that actually fell into a guru trap with this strategy. A guy that “called the top”.

In reality, there are no gurus and one can only assess the markets based on clues but nothing is etched in stone with the markets based on math as there will always be market influences.

If math was all that was needed to make money in the markets then all those PHD mathematicians would be billionaires too.

5 Likes

Yes, and the same exact thing can be said about economists too (“fundamental” analysis).

2 Likes

With at least one huge exception: Renaissance Technologies by Jim Simons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Technologies His company runs on math and has been and still is very very successful.

Interview with Simons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNznD9hMEh0

Interesting fellow…and in his own words:

“The computer has its opinions and we slavishly follow them"

So that means that though you can model the potential behaviour of the markets the outcome is not guaranteed.

2 Likes

I suggest you read Dark Pools: The Rise of the Machine Traders and the Rigging of the U.S. Stock Market by Scott Patterson.

I believe the book also talks abour RT, but I am not sure (book was returned to the library a while ago).

1 Like

Boom! Crashed in 6 days!

Welcome to c2. Subscribers just lost 98% in 2 days. This is what make c2 so dangerous! You have developers all they do is martingale non stop into every trade, 1 bad day or 2 bad trades later every subscribers got wiped out. C2 and developer both collected their fees. This strategy didn’t even last a week!

2 Likes

I’m probably repeating myself, but how do people decide to subscribe to such a system? Where did that trust come from? Maybe C2 should prevent subscriptions until after the strategy is 6 months old or so. Just to protect investors against themselves and keep them on board.

Unfortunately, a “long” track record is not a guarantee of anything. We have seen “old” C2 systems crash and burn with just a couple of losing trades.

On the other hand (like the main character in “Fiddler on the Roof” would say), some “young” C2 systems can deliver excellent results year after year, and with a reasonable drawdown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oSK6l24buk

For beginners: Do yourselves a favor and backtest martingale systems on e.g. QuantConnect or Quantopian. Then you will understand these “strategies” if a simple Wikipedia link isn’t enough. These never win, but depending on design the half life to blow up can vary from days to years. An easy tell sign is when a strategy uses high leverage.

2 Likes

Longevity is not a perfect criterion, but it is indicative of a sound system. I prefer to see at least 100 trades, even if hypothetical. The more trades with good results, the higher the statistical probability of a good system. Unfortunately, this does not cover undisclosed changes of methods by the developer.

1 Like

No doubt about that.