granted. They can. I missed the point that you has underlined.
Eu
>I’ll have a right to filter the kind of people
You actually don’t have the right, neither the ability. As Matthew pointed out, right now subscribers can take the opposite side of you, if they wish to do so and manual. Actually they can do 3 things with signals:
1. Take it
2. Ignore it
3. Oppose it
The only illegal act is to rebroadcast your signal to others. Other then that, subscribers can do whatever they want with your signal.
I see an advantage of the new feature: when people argue about a system, instead of betting (like it happened in the past) just let the other party to subscribe to the system and take the opposite and see who wins.
Here is another although little timeconsuming way to test the feature: Put the next 10-15 newest systems on your My Analyst list. After a month report back the collective P/L. My guess is that there is an 80% chance the group will be in the red.
I also agree with Matt about systems that run up in 2-3 months but get tired and they are ripe for shorting.
Again, this is a feature that won’t be used by many and everybody has the option NOT to use it.
My main grievance with C2 is that lots of stats slow the system down…
One of the biggest issues with Collective2 set up is that a successful system becomes discovered by too many subscribers. Number of subscribers x average capital traded per system becomes large enough to effect the market. When this happens system breaks down very suddenly and subscribers to the system loose their shirt. There is now way to tell the difference between a normal draw down and broken system until it is too late.
The only party that has some idea about number of people trading the system is "the house". New feature discussed about here makes it easy for the house to take advantage of the situation when the system becomes too popular and trading opposite of it would likely to produce favorable result. This is a classic example of "asymetric" knowledge being used to make profits.
I have always been afraid that the house has this possibility and now this feature introduction makes it official. This technology only benefits the house at the expense of unsuspecting traders.
Instead of introducing such feature it would be worthwhile to increase transparency for an average trader by revealing total amount of funds traded by each system through auto trader to everybody. I know this will not solve the issue of not everyone using auto-trader but it will certainly be step in the right direction.
It would be also of some consolation to receive some assurances that the house is not allowed and not trading against the subscribers.
Best regards
Rob.
I do not follow your logic. The reason it is considered unethical for brokers to trade "against" their clients is because the brokers can actually affect the prices that clients receive (and will have incentives, as a counterparty, to make fills worse).
Not only does C2 have no control over the prices a trader receives, but - in theory - trading "contra" a system would benefit the subscribers who trade "with" the system, by providing liquidity and narrowing spreads.
a successful system discovered by too many subscribers. Number of subscribers x average capital traded per system becomes large enough to effect the market. When this happens system breaks down very suddenly and subscribers to the system loose their shirt. There is now way to tell the difference between a normal draw down and broken system until it is too late.
The subscriber needs to exercise SOME brains when trading. If the market is affected, then that is why C2 has slippage, realism and other things available as a diagnostic. But the vendor and subscriber bear their own results if trading illiquid instruments.
Rob,
Time&Sales around signal level will give you good estimation of funds in game for any stock system presented at C2. From the point you can figure out how the system effect the market and what is your chances.
Eu
MK,
I like the fact that you are always trying to innovate!
I have a question about feedback. Right now, systems developer’s interests are aligned with all of their subscribers because all will benefit if the system makes money. However, if a subscriber is contra trading a system, wouldn’t that make their interests also counter to the system developer’s? And if that happens, say the system performs well, in the methodology intended, the contra subscriber is going to lose money. A subscriber that just lost money might be tempted to leave negative feedback on a system that actually performed well and that might cost the developer future subscribers. Just a thought…
Keep up the great work!
Sincerely,
Daryl
[LINKSYSTEM_26717594]
True, but this problem is not present only in the case of "contra trading." Reviews must always be regarded with a grain of salt.
Devious traders may want to leave false negative reviews, for example, in order to scare people away from a system that a trader likes (in order to keep trading volume, and slippage, low). Alternately, vendors may leave falsely positive reviews written by themselves (shill reviews) or may ask friends to do the same.
Thus, as is the case in many aspects of life, some degree of care is required to separate fact from fiction.
Interesting new feature… Quite a few comments in regards… So … Let me get this understood. As system vendors we can now "purposely" bomb trades, by creating a system called, dunno something like "Bombs Away System X", allowing the reverse of our trades to take place, and the subscribers makes money.
So now we can start creating systems that can purposely lose account size.
Quick question - do we get a refill on our $100k when it hits zero? 
Although I know at least one system vendor is doing this (purposefully creating a “bad” system), it is, to be honest, not a sensible idea. One can not guarantee bad trades any more than one can guarantee good trades.
The reality is: where most trading systems fail is through commission and slippage and poor money management (for example, risking too much capital on a single position that could easily do badly). Simply taking the opposite side of most systems will not lead to riches.
The purpose of the contrarian autotrade feature is not to allow system vendors to market bad systems as bad systems. Again, this has no more likelihood of success than a system marketed as a good system.
But I believe there will always be a certain subset of systems which meet certain parameters, and these systems will be prone to fail catastrophically at a certain point in time. Thus, a savvy trader might be able to determine the profile of these systems (it certainly would not be those systems that are marketed as purposefully bad systems) and might be able to subscribe to such systems and do their opposite at well-chosen moments in time.
This is my personal theory, anyway. I have no evidence that this is feasible, but it’s something that interests me on an intellectual level, and that is why the ability to AutoTrade the “opposite” of a system is now available to all AutoTraders (Gen3 and higher).
>(purposefully creating a “bad” system)
I wonder what’s his reason for doing so? We should realize that the downside of contratrading someone is that the maximum profit is capped at 100%…
I see the value of doing it for 2-3 months, but not much longer.
Pedro:
You know what? I think you are right.
gA
[LINKSYSTEM_30873120]
You guys think profit being maximized at 100% is a problem? Sounds like a nice problem to have. 100%, gee that would be a disappointing return wouldn’t it?
Pro: IMO, there are two areas where this could work well. (1) A close look at many marginally profitable systems, particularly in equities, will reveal that they are likely geared toward a particular market environment. (Bull, Bear, Volatility, etc.) When that environment ends, they tank. A sharp trader may be able to profit with MK’s scheme. (2) New systems that appear to be targeting the wrong instruments in the wrong market environment. Keep in mind that in general, the odds (statistically) are against the success of ANY new system.
Con: It would seem to me - I could be wrong here - that a losing system isn’t going to keep losing for long before the trader bails. So there ends the opportunity.
John,
Yeah, but like Pedro said you will be happy to make 100% over X months - but then what?
How many systems can you successfully “contra” target and (like I am always harping) - what use is a one-it wonder if you can’t consistently compound it over time (more than 1 year). to actually build real wealth.
pay$ aka GilL
[LINKSYSTEM_30960008]
"Yeah, but like Pedro said you will be happy to make 100% over X months - but then what?"
Then I start another one and make another 100%.
John,
I admire your enthusiasm and I am not one to (yet) talk on C2, BUT (lol) keep in mind that your 1 month + system has made little upside (downside) progress from where you started. Additionally the DD (going from 100k to 300k) would not benefit anyone during this period.
Not to be taken negatively, just some critiquing.
Yours,
Gilbert
[LINKSYSTEM_30763562]
Translation:
"Learn from Gilbert - the expert in system plummets"
I’m merely responding to your original line of questioning, my current performance is irrelevant to your argument. You were arguing the downside of the system is that it might only make 100% in 2-3 months and then what? I gave you an answer, start another one. The fact that I’m not there yet with the first one is irrelevant, you were asking what would happen once I achieve my target and I told you.
