Platform Integrity

Dear Michael,

I am new to Collective2 and have spent a number of hours combing through the various traders. I ran across one today that puts an incredicle cloud over the integrity of the reporting standards here.

The system is CT Global Hedge. The account balance is what caught my attention so I delved deeper into the specific trades. It appears that CT Global bought primarily penny stocks which many where sold for a loss except for one “DHPI” which provided a huge return per the records. Bought in Nov 05 at $.07 and sold in Mar 06 at $.19 with 2.4M shares.

Now, here is the curious part. I checked into DHPI per records and found a DHPI.OB which is Desert Health Products. The company hasn’t made any money and the share volume per the history is no where near the 2.4M CT Global Hedge could have purchased. The total shares sold from Nov 1 06 to Jan 10 06 amounts to about 2.5M shares.

I quit counting the number of unsolicitate e-mails hyping a penny stock. This DHPI looks and smells just like one. Since Jan 06 look at the volume and price rotation up through the next few months.

I hope that Collective2 doesn’t become a platform via the backdoor for stock hypers.


This kind of thing has been discussed here countless times in the past, along with various other unrealistic scenarios that exist in some of the advertised systems. The “realism factor” (RF) provides an indication of the sum total of these real world tradability issues. C2 puts them out there with various tools (like RF, trade stats, etc.) to help in evaluations, but it is the job of the system shopper to sort out good systems from bad.

Thanks Randy,

As I said I am new to this platform so I wasn’t aware that this subject has been brought up.

After I wrote the comment, I did notice the realisim factor for CT Global Hedge and noted the extremely low number which confirms your point.

Just bare with me here, it will take me some time to weed through all of the functions of this system.

Thanks again,.


"The “realism factor” (RF) provides an indication of the sum total of these real world tradability issues."

Sorry, but this is sometimes not true. There is a ES system with

a RF factor of 95.2 that held nearly $560,000 in futures margin over

night while there was only about $150,000 in actual equity. In real life

the trade would never happen, there is no downside vs the RF and

C2 is featuring the system.

In spite of a RF factor of 14.1 the stock system mentioned in the previous post is ranked as the best of the best in the “Hot Hand” Report. Clearly this benefits the vendor. What is the downside to abusing C2?

Integrity is everything here in the long run. If the results can’t be

believed, then C2 and its vendors will suffer.

I Agree. Not only is the integrity is in question, it is not fair for those vendors who are in the business of creating a honest and reliable system/method. This is the effect of setting an arbitrary minimum standard for RF, SR etc., in evaluating systems.

ps: By the way, SR should be used as a tie-breaker between 2 similar systems, not as a minimum requirement to evaluate it. When one’s partial attitude delcares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you - whom do you betray and whom do you encourage? … so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from values; so long as values are at stake, no neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a con man is to become an accessory to the fleecing of his victims. Only the good can lose by a default of justice and only the evil can profit…

Hello !

You are dead right and I am the first to condemn these vendors by writing “sour” comments in their own forum when the one vendor you are reffering to said just a few days earlier than his recent 60 k one day loss"Check me out" “I am back” !


What a good prediction it was !


This particular system, whose name will go unmentioned [Bender], even went so far as to email me calling me “an ass” because he didn’t like my comments about his system on my “my analyst” page.