"Personalized" vs. standard pnl chart

Looking at [LINKSYSTEM_43943414]

According to the Standard chart the total return of the system is 300% (from $3000 to $12000).

According to the Personalized chart (set to ignore all commissions and fees) the total return is 200% (starting from $3000 to $9000).

Shouldn’t these 2 charts be showing the same total return?

Yes I noticed such effects too. Some systems look right but others (like ES-ES) are way off when you switch on personalization.

One reason is that the personalized numbers are only recalculated at the point of a trade so that systems with few long term trades show totally misleading personalized charts and monthly return figures. This problem is not so relevant for systems that trade often.

Matthew has said in another post that the reason for this is that the servers would be overloaded if they had to recalculate the whole equity curve for each user every time personalized data is requested. Matthew, if you are reading this I’d suggest that a fix might be to provide an optional browser plug-in (e.g. Java or Flex) that we can install which downloads the historical data once for each system we look at and then does the calculation on the fly locally rather than on the C2 servers.

However, ES-ES trades relatively often and yet the outcome is wrong nevertheless.

I don’t trust the personalization feature as it is at the moment because, besides the problem above, I have no idea how the figures are calculated. For instance, I don’t know whether when incorporating trading commissions the calculator deducts for every trade, including closing trades. I would expect it to but I don’t know and when I get a funny looking equity chart my trust of the calculator diminishes.

Apologies for the long post but I have been meaning to write about this for a while so it’s all come out now!

Thanks. ES-ES (unlike other systems I think) has been rescaled down (more than once?) by the developer. I’m not sure if that affects the personalized results (even though in theory it shouldn’t).