Hey, Matt, I thought I’d turn this to the public forum to see if anybody agrees with me. There are 95+ “analyst” pages following a nothing system called MVP-3. Nobody in their right mind would ever post a 5 star review after a DD like that. I can guarantee it. I also see that both the Vedaee whatever his name is and MVP-3 are both in the most interesting notes.
Come on Vedaee! Oh, and the vendor of MVP-3 needs to come here, too! That way Matt can peg your IP addresses and match them up to show the fraud. All the ballots you have stuffed and keeping a 6 trade system at the most looked at this hour list will come to an end shortly.
This has to be addressed immediately, Matt.
I agree that if someone is using another login/username purely to plug one of their own systems it’s unethical, but I doubt you can prove it unequivocally, (and even if MK can he probably wouldn’t divulge the fact to protect that person’s privacy).
Secondly, allowing one IP address as you suggest wouldn’t solve the problem, you can still have several email address logins at C2 all from the same IP address, people have every right to set up accounts in other user names or handles to protect their identity as MK has discussed before. I doubt you will get it changed but by all means continue to highlight when you suspect wrongdoing, if they don’t deny it you might be on to something.
For what it’s worth, the IP addresses of the system owner and the reviewer have been consistently different over time, and their browsers’ signatures are different. There is nothing nefarious going on here, so far as I can see.
If you look at the curves, their nearly identical. Take a look at all of the analyst pages that are book marked to this system. I’m sure there will be at least 1 similarity.
that is called "posting from home and posting from work" They will be different in every way
Guys, I’m not Sherlock Holmes. While I can do some basic detective work, ferreting out obvious frauds and cheating nincompoops (comparing IP addresses, for example), I’m not qualified (nor do I have the resources) to investigate every cry of “Foul!” on the C2 site. Indeed, in many cases, there isn’t firm evidence of unscrupulous behavior. Rather, there sometimes is just a faint whiff of it. In these cases, one person’s opinion (mine) is no better than anyone else’s.
The beauty of C2’s being a community site is that we can all benefit from the combined wisdom of our community. Thus, if there is something you feel is obviously fishy, then by all means post a civil message in the forums, laying out the case, and let people decide. I think 90% of the fishy stuff is obvious to anyone with a brain, and the other 10% can be gleaned with the help of our dedicated C2 members.
Please don’t misunderstand me. It’s vital that we keep the integrity of the site beyond question. But the way to achieve this is through consistent community policing and group effort. In this way, we’ll drive charlatans off the site, and keep C2 a home for honest system developers and savvy traders.
If you look at VD’s review of MVP on his analyst page he blatantly admits that the guy is a mate of his, they go back years, at least he’s being upfront about it, hardly cloak and dagger stuff is it?
And as for ‘most interesting notes’ all it takes is for one person to go down another’s analyst page and mark them all outstanding and lo and behold they all appear in the list - case in point, take a look at it now.
I don’t think there’s much of a case to answer here.
Did you look at the curves, Jon? You’d see what I’m talking. They’re the same person and the review was a shill review written by Vedaee about his “friends” system that just took a nosedive. In all the history of reviews, I’ve yet to see a single other reviewer post 5 stars on an equity decline like that. Someone else needs to go prove otherwise to me. That’s what tips me off.
This is the problem when people only look at the aggregate statistics of a system, rather than contacting the vendor (as I did), and examining the details to understand how it works, and why the c2 stats may not be entirely accurate, since this system has been running longer than recorded on c2.
Maybe I’m missing something regarding the DD, as the c2 stats record a max DD of 25%, which If I’m not mistaken are very similar to some pairs arb. systems here on c2.
Of course I’m talking about mvp-3, I haven’t examined vadeae, but just from the description they seem to operate on a similar principal, so probably no surprise that the equity curves resemble.
I guess I don’t understand how a system with only 6 trades has so many viewers. Am I missing something?
If I remember the details that the vendor sent me correctly, mvp-3 has been running for a couple of years prior to being listed on c2, has a google group where subscribers hang out, etc. I guess some of them now go through c2?
I can’t understand what all the fuss is about here, the system looks fairly reasonable to me, though I haven’t delved too deeply as yet.
The six trades are an artifact of how C2 book-keeps. C2 aggreagates all new entries in the original direction until all postions in that direction are closed. In reality, there are 22 seperate trades.
The vendor does a good job of picking overall market direction during his periods of accumulation/distribution (start of position building until end), but he’s really making his money on his accumulation and distribution along the way as the following breakout shows:
Long from 11/23/07 through 1/3/08: he made .6 percent while the spy was down .7 percent.
Long from 1/10/08 to 1/17/08: he lost 9.4 percent while the spy lost 1.3 percent.
Short from 1/17/08 to 1/1808: he made 6.6 percent while the spy lost 2.2 percent.
Long from 1/18/08 to 2/22/08: he made 7.1 percent while the spy made .1 percent.
Short from 3/4/08 to 3/20/08: he made 4.6 percent while the spy lost 1.6 percent.
Long from 3/20/08 to 5/22/08: he made 7.2 percent while the spy was up 7.2 percent.
In short, his overall market direction call was correct 5 out of 6 trades, and during those market calls he WAY outperformed the spy with his ins and outs.
My opinion is that all the views are completely warranted. This guy knows how to trade.
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the explanation.
