The opinions expressed in these forums do not represent those of C2, and any discussion of profit/loss is not indicative of future performance or success. There is a substantial risk of loss in trading. You should therefore carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. You should read, understand, and consider the Risk Disclosure Statement that is provided by your broker before you consider trading. Most people who trade lose money.
Noticed that trading strategies now show their C2 ranking in the Summary Statistics column on the right hand side of the page. This ranking is based on a strategy’s C2 score.
The ranking only shows for the top #120 ranked strategies on Collective2. To view an ordered list of top C2 ranked strategies, click on LEADERBOARD under the FIND STRATEGY tab in the left-hand toolbar.
This is how Collective 2 describes the C2 Score.
"Collective2’s Quant Team is continually analyzing strategy performance. We try to determine which statistical factors, if any, are predictive of future strategy performance. We use a proprietary scoring algorithm to assign a numerical score to every strategy offered on the C2 Platform. We call this the C2 Score. We then rank strategies by C2 Score.
Although there can be no guarantees about future performance, and while even highly ranked strategies may lose money, we believe that higher-ranked strategies are more likely to do better for Collective2 customers than lower ranked strategies."
Very strange rating. In the first places are new systems with statistics for 2-3-6 months. Good systems are placed in 200-300-400 places. -)))
Team C2. Please do independent risk management for system developers and customers. The developer declared that he loses 10% per month, even if it is controlled by an independent person in the person of you - block trade and access to trade until the next month.
I noticed that many systems have drawdowns of 30-40-70% per month. This adversely affects your overall reputation. Independent risk control is needed, otherwise this disgrace will continue.
Michael
For those interested, here is a sampling of the top systems per the ranking system that are also TOS certified on C2 . Anyone else confused? C2, I strongly doubt this is what you really intend to communicate to subscribers. Almost all the systems with any length of track record are ranking very low. It appears the best rank is achieved by losing money.
And here is a sampling of some of the worst per C2 Ranking.
I’m sure it’s a work in progress. They will get it right in time.
The first places are bad systems with a large drawdown or small age, and the last places are stable systems with a long history. I think they made a mistake in polarity. You need to do the opposite.
I think the idea behind this is to promote more systems across a larger spectrum. I mean, the good systems don’t need promotion.
My systems “PFSignal com” (Forex), “Myfxmap com” (Currency futures CME Group), “MAP Capital Investment” (Forex) occupy 355, 384, 341 places in the new rating. -))) Although in fact they are in the TOP 30 of the best systems of your project - this is a fact. Change the rating is not serious.
@OilTraderGuy, C2 -
Can you explain the difference between “Rank at C2%” and “Rank #”?
Also, how do I filter on these Ranks?
You should add this Rank system to the Filter for it to be really useful.
You dont expect investors to go into each strategy to look at its Rank, do you?
All these internal ranks need to be removed as misleading and confusing. C2 is taking excessive responsibilities for nothing.
The Leaderboard (without any filters used) shows the strategies as ranked by C2 Score. The top strategy on the Leaderboard is #1, the second strategy is #2, etc. These numbers change.
The C2 Score is a percentile number. So a C2 Score of 998 means the strategy ranks higher than 99.8% of others, or is in the Top 0.2% of ranked strategies.
The C2 Score is just a number, and your mileage may vary. The algorithm behind it is continually being adjusted.
Finally, all Strategy Managers are given a C2 Score Workbench to see how they can improve their score by improving various component statistics that make up the score.
If I do not know the algorithm for calculating your coefficients. You say that this is know-how. How can I improve performance and improve myself in the ranking? This is a rhetorical question - a question that does not require an answer.
Looks like a useful tool. However it may have a few bugs at this time. For example my Ann Return under the stats tab on the details page is 911%, yet the scorecard shows it as 9.11%. Also too, whenever I change any of the values, except for Age, it simply changes the rank to 331 for everything.
Sounds like there is a bug. One of my systems jumped from C2 Rank of 65 last night to 331 today. Hard to believe that is a coincidence.
No errors, really!
Here’s what’s going on:
C2 Scores are recalculated every few hours. In the meantime, lots of stats change – for both your strategy and others. When you use the workbench, you’re saying: Hey, C2, show me where I would stand RIGHT NOW, using the freshest performance statistics you have. Then compare this to my current, frozen-in-time, every-few-hours score.
That’s why your screen shot example can happen, above: because your performance has already changed relative to where you were earlier today. The single stat you typed in is irrelevant to the change.
I agree this is a bit inscrutable, though; and I will make it more clear what’s going on.
Oh, and P.S. : Regarding “percentages” - we show the stats as they exist in the C2 database, at the same orders of magnitude. That’s why a “20% return” appears as 0.20, and why 200% is shown as “2”.
Mathew, the C2 scorecard clearly states ann return as “pcnt”, if that isn’t PERCENT then it’s misleading. Also, the tool just isn’t working, look at what I posted before firing off an automatic everything is fine reply. I changed the ann return from 9.11 to 20 and the ranking went from 148 to 329, so a better ann return gets a worse score… wow that’s simpy a GREAT ranking system, meh, no idea why I even bother with this place, such a waste of time!
I think my message must not have been very clear, because my points seem to have been ignored. Main point is: things change because the workbench uses dynamic stats (up to the second) and compares the outcome to your current score (which uses “old” stats). That’s why things can suddenly “get worse” when you only type in “improved” stats. I agree that is counter-intuitive, so I’ll work on that.
In the meantime, if the workbench provides no value to you, you can just ignore it.
