Since both in real life and here on C2 most (90+ %) traders/vendors lose money, how about a Feature where the subscriber could take the exact Opposite of the trades what the vendor does?
If you randomly subscribe to 10 systems, and using the opposite trading strategy, you would be making money with at least 7 of the systems 2 might be breakeven and 1 would be down (up for the vendor) in less then a month.
Also people who bet against vendors could put their money where their mouth is! 
So what do you guys think?
"subscriber could take the exact Opposite of the trades what the vendor does"
this is a true sign of an inexperienced trader
It does not work that way. You are assuming vendors are very good at picking bad trades. You are only focusing on a few systems with meltdowns. What about the majority, which just exhibit random behavior? And what about slippage, commissions, and other costs?
I would also appreciate such a feature.
I am especially interested in trading forex systems the opposite way. For autotrading, you would just need a fixed Stop loss that the subscriber can set at his discretion and that is automatically put after a trade has been opened (in the opposite direction).
ARGH
Ever try to test your theory on paper over time before throwing away money on such an illogical quest?
Ross, relax! So far 2 people requested that feature, and only you are against it.
Let’s say Matthew makes it. If you don’t want to use it, just ignore it. That’s it. But if there are a few users who would like to try it out, why shouldn’t C2 do it for them, instead of making more stats ??
It is called users’ request.
I think you’re right. There was a system a while ago with +12 million, if I remember correctly. Imagine doing the opposite of that…
Yes - 2 users requested it. Maybe we should have another indicator for "Newbie detector" that measures how green a trader is based on strange requests.
It sounds good. You floated a theory of doing the opposite of bad systems.
The theory flies in the face of all reason (you are assuming that they are good at picking bad trades).
Test your theory before assuming it has value. Follow some bad systems, and demonstrate. You will discover after a sufficient sample size, it will be basically random.
Add me to the list of who oppose it. Indeed, I won’t be harmed directly if you use it, but it will cost the developers (Matthew, Francis) valuable time that they can spend better on features that make sense.
I said this long time ago, I repeat it again:
What C2 needs is better traders and not more fancy looks or 100 another stats. but in the maintime, if we can have better traders, why not trade against the bad traders?
You guys are against it? So what? Don’t use it. It probably doesn’t take more than 2 hours to write that part of the program.
Ross, here is a simple way to try it: Follow the next 10 newset system and see where they are after 1 week. Report back what you have found…
I don’t need to. I tried this experiment in my younger years with a number of systems over time, and it was essentially random, offering no value-add. Many newer traders think this up.
Besides, the one who floats the hypothesis is the one that needs to offer compelling arguments for. The last thing C2 needs is statistics based on "hey, why not try this? rather than compelling arguments.
The concept that trades opposing bad systems will be profitable are is similar to the perpetual motion machine. It only works if you fail to test it rigourously or fail examine it rigorously.
You may have something there Rinaldo.
Many traders will consistently defeat themselves, figure out which ones, and then hope they don’t give up.
So what do you guys think?
Why do you have to ask anybody? Back test/forward test it 
A system with no edge looses money in BOTH directions, because the system entries are random lol
Eu
Then why don’t you start a system “Anti-consensus” and try it out? Why should C2 do it for you?
