Well I have been monitoring C2 for well over a year and have yet to see any system survive the best/popular system categories pages for more than a few months. The CC40 and similar look great until you try and trade them -those equity curves mean very little in real life trading. In a way this site dilutes it’s overall intentions by having so many duff systems -it almost appears to be proving that there really isn’t anything worthwhile out there… Having said that I feel there are a few very promisng ones in the pipeline not least Entropia, FXNeural Power, perhaps Onitrader2 but we still need that 6 month proven profitable trades with equity curve…with accpetable drawdown ( risk) as has previously been posted…
Perhaps we should have a traders current favourites rather than C2 best systems page??
I’m sorry to post a comment that could sound like advertising, but my purpose goes far beyond that.
One of my systems has made 50 winners in a row, 100% win.
Max drawdown was 14%, but I changed some settings and the expected drawdown is now less than 6% since december 05.
How can you still ask yourself if solid systems do exist, when you read such stats?
Of course, this system is not one of the best performing systems, mesured in return per year. But ask any professional if 90-100% return is to be considered low…
What I think is that people (including me) is too greedy. We only look at systems taking high risks, and then we get punished. Trading shouldn’t be gambling. If you are looking for solid and realistic systems, with a decent profitability, you can find some on the website. Peter did mention some of them.
Of course, if 99% of the subscribers get ruined with top of the list systems taking too much risk, you cannot find lots of long-term happy subscribers. That’s the real problem and I am very sad about it, because potential subscribers use to become discouraged and quit trading before they give a try to solid “low profile” systems.
These days, I found many wise subscribers posting on the forum, just because one of the top-of-the-list system is showing its dark side. I bet that if things turn well and the above-mentionned system recovers its drawdown, people will no more be interested in low risk systems… until the next time.
C2 may not be perfect, however it is not responsible for subscribers own greed and inconsistency. Don’t blame C2!
Jerome … you are right, and I should have qualified by adding “autotradable” (if that’s a word). The only reason I abandoned High-Sharpe Forex was because it proved to be impossible to autotrade using Tradebullet and C2 signals. Given that some of the trades happen overnight where I am located, I needed autotrading to work and it didn’t (5 out of 6 trades had problems either getting filled at all, getting the stops in properly, C2 reporting fills when my real account didn’t or vice verse, etc.). So it wasn’t any fault of the system, but rather of trying to autotrade it using C2/TB and I should have qualified that.
I know this is also the case for other systems like Extreme-os, CC40, and others with great equity curves. They may be great systems for the person calling the signals, but delays and execution problems using C2 and Tradebullet can mean the difference between a positive equity curve slope and a negative one. In the case of your High Sharpe system, it was the inability to stay in synch using autotrading that kicked me out, not the system itself. Forex is especially bad in this regard because of the variations in quotes from quote vendors.
Randy
P.S. I see that the forex qoute feed issue and other comments concerning C2 and forex systems is on another thread (C2 needs a better forex quote feed!) in this section, and that MK is working to improve things.
Not to beat a dead horse (I announced this elsewhere in the forum), but I am working on adding new forex quote feeds to C2. This should improve forex auto-trading.
Paul,
I’m very happy to know that the quote feed will improve soon.
That way, I will be able to trade with market orders and auto-trade will be 100% reliable.
Until now, when I used market orders, I sometimes got fills 4-6 pips away from the real price.
I hope that auto-trade softwares can run and make profit while you sleep or do you have to check it very often?
Randy,
Having also suffered losses during the 4 months of subscribing to various systems on C2, I remain reluctant to post specifics. I am currently down about 32% due to missed fills, C2/TB/IB interconnection outages, and lack of stop-loss/hedging on the part of a certain Forex system vendor. I am currently subscribed to Pedro’s Pannonia system, which is doing mildly well, but certainly not at the same rate as the initial part of the equity curve would suggest is possible. Having tried Entropia for a few days, I see that system as not auto-tradeable (at least at IB) until C2 gets a better Forex data-feed.
If you or Walter Rines (or anyone else) has the resources to use 100% scaling, and are seeking positive investment gains more than the thrill of being a successful trader, please investigate under AutoTrading/Overview//Broker Assist/Learn More/Finding a C2-compatible broker. Back in November, that led me to Patricia Lemberg (800-906-5863), a Senior Account Executive at Man Financial in Chicago. Since there was no agreement at that time regarding how to set the pricing for broker-assisted trading any of the C2 systems, she was very helpful in gettng me setup with a CTA-manager who has a two-year track record of 80-100% annual returns with minimal drawdowns; just for January and Februay of this year, the return from his system is about 70%. If Patricia’s allotment of open accounts for this CTA has been filled, please e-mail me privately (athielke@HotMail.com) so that I can give you the CTA’s URL; he is open to more clients beyond what Man Financial introduces to him. No, I am not in any business relationship with this CTA or Man Financial, but just want to share the good news that there are some high-return trading systems outside the purview of C2…
those equity curves mean very little in real life trading. In a way this site dilutes it’s overall intentions by having so many duff systems -it almost appears to be proving that there really isn’t anything worthwhile out there…
The above really caught my attention. Can you elaborate on this and maybe care to suggest, how to improve them? I think C2 begs for all kinds of innovation from savy investors.
ps: I am a great fan of (closed) equity curve trading.
Jerome … the autotrading combination of C2 receiving vendor signals and sending those signals to the Tradebullet software (for subsequent order placement at a compatible broker) does work well the majority of the time. But with serious dollars at stake in highly leveraged trades it is not so reliable that you can go to sleep and forget it. I have at least one event per week on a limit order futures system (Steady-II) where things get out of synch with C2 and I have to make manual readjustments. In this case the culprit seems to usually be an order that the system vendor cancels at C2, but the order got executed in my trading account prior to the cancelation. In any case, you have to regularly check on things to be safe and stay in synch with C2.
For your High-Sharpe system the problems were further compounded by the quote feed variations which caused wide variations between C2 fills (or lack thereof) and my IB account fills (or lack thereof), and the more cancel/replace cycles and limit orders in the system the worse the potential problems can become. So I’m hoping the new quote feed configuration for forex can solve the problems and allow some of these systems to be autotraded with confidence going forward.
At the risk of sounding promotional also (as another previous commentor alluded to) I can understand the reluctance to believe that there are systems out there that consistently provide profits over time.
Having published a public portfolio for over 4 years now and having successfully outperformed the market during that period of time, I know that it can be done (www.tatoday.com) and is being done.
I started a portfolio here for two reasons a couple weeks ago; to have an independent site publish trade results of my trading and to create a subscription based income for myself based on what I do without having to write the software on my own website.
It is likely that a significant number of the systems here on CS are fly-by-the-night, can’t-reproduce-those-results type systems, but I also suspect that, with enough homework, you can find systems that do, not only survive, but thrive. Personally, I don’t fit the high risk/high reward profile that seems to be highlighted on CS and I’ve suggested that some additional tools be developed to “uncover” systems that are lower risk systems that outperform the markets.
Maybe I’m wrong and maybe this venue will not work for me personally or for the public in general. I’m here to try it out for a year or so, to create results as I have elsewhere and to see if the subscription model is worth the effort. If not, I’ll simpy go away and concentrate my efforts elsewhere.
FWIW, I have been profitable trading ExtremeOS since last October
using MOC and VWAP orders. It proved impossible to come close
to C2’s reported fills so I stopped trying and just put in all orders as
VWAP and MOC (for stocks that weren’t qualified for vwap, which
is available for “large cap” stocks only).
My returns have been averaging about 6% per month vs. C2’s fills
at 9% a month during this period. Still 6% per month is a good
return.
On my C2 trading overall, I am at about breakeven. Most of my
losses came from one system, HawkFX. And I should have known
better on that one, I could see that the system vendor was stubborn
and liked to hold losses until they come back, if ever.
Systems with 100% wins (or even 90% wins) make me nervous!
Like Risk-Averse FX and Consensus. Look at the daily equity
curves – small steady gains puntuated by short, sharp and
large drawdowns. They get their high % by holding losers or
even averaging down on losers (Consensus does this, so do
some of the other high % systems). Usually the losers come
back but I am always afraid of the trade that does not come
back, like what happened with HawkFX.
True that my systems frequently adjust the exit orders (take profit and sometimes stop-loss). Usually, you have at least 10 minutes to change it, wich should be enough to replicate the systems results, trading manually. Of course, if auto-trade always bugs, that’s another issue.
My first purpose for creating systems on C2 was not to attract subscribers, but to create an official and public track-record in order to promote my managed accounts service. I’m aware that self-trading, even when following a good system, can be very aleatory and finally turn out to be only a waste of time and money.
Are there successful subscribers over a long period on C2?
Well, reading through all the posts of this page, I feel no big enthousiasm and start wondering if the answer wouldn’t simply be : NO (for so many different reasons…).
Schmitty,
I can’t let you think what you think about my risk-averse system.
I close 99% of the trades size with a very tight stop-loss when things turn bad. The system truely is risk-averse. Drawdown is fully under control and there is no more big DD.
And please, don’t compare me with another system developper, especially the one you mentionned.
Your comment is a judgement. Did you really make a due dilligence investigation prior to asserting I take unlimited risks?
The answer is no. I think you didn’t even read the system description.
Take no offense, but I think it’s easier for you to think that a 100% winning system cannot exist, because you are lazy. You don’t have the curiosity and the strength to see beyond the common sense telling you : it cannot exist. Please open your mind, all of us are not hawk’s clones.
Jerome
Jerome … the main problem with autotrading is getting out of synch with C2 on the orders, not necessarily bugs in the software. If C2 shows a fill but a subscriber account doesn’t get filled (or vice versa), everything is fouled up.
For example, C2 may not show a fill and the vendor subsequently cancels the order. After the cancelation, no exit order is ever entered by the vendor since there is presumed to be no open position. If the order was already filled in the subsrciber account prior to being canceled, it would stay open forever without manual intervention (or a margin call, etc.)… Ditto for a stop loss or take profit limit order that may be filled by C2 but not in the subscriber account. C2 would assume the position is closed when in the real account is isn’t.
These incidents have to be continually watched for and this can’t conveniently be done in the U.S. for overnight signals. Improving the forex quote feed management on C2 may well eliminate 99% of these events and make autotrading viable for forex systems.
Well I think this has already been discussed at length but I would -along with the many others here -like to see some systems survive the ‘best’ systems page for longer than a month or so. Risk management would suggest not touching anything without at least 6 months solid track record of low drawdown and acceptable profit growth. These systems also need to be able to be traded using the C2 TB autotrading service -it’s no good having a great equity curve if the system can not be traded ( without huge slipppage missed trades, TB/C2 problems…) -so it’s a combination of both. A real live traded account ( as apposed to essentially what are simulated results on C2) would also help. I have read so many cases of traders losing a huge amount of money here it is quite depressing. Part of the problem is in how easy it is to set up the autotrading service with little regard paid the the huge risk this carries with most systems. As I said I can see some promising new systems emerging but so did I a year ago -it’s just a question now if these can really prove to be the ‘real deal’. I am impressed with the way Matthew continues to improve the site and try to make our job easier but at the moment my feelings are that it should carry a wealth warning…traders losing 30-40% of their accounts is just crazy. Yes they should be careful with leverage but it appears this applies to more than a few careless traders…
Jerome,
The only reason your system shows 100% wins is because of
C2’s bizarre non-fifo method of accounting for closed trades.
C2 allows system vendors to keep a small residual (as small
as one lot in forex) position open and keep a losing trade off
the closed trade table indefinitely, or until it comes back. This
seriously distorts the true win rate.
Here is one of your trades:
2/6/06 6:40 STO 53 EURGBP 0.6831
2/8/06 2:10 BTC 45 EURGBP 0.6871
2/9/06 13:01 STO 53 EURGBP 0.6874
2/10/06 8:05 BTC 53 EURGBP 0.6838
2/10/06 8:16 BTC 8 EURGBP 0.6835
Incredibly C2 reports this as a single profitable trade of 106
lots even though only a maximum of 61 lots were open at any
one time. On normal fifo accounting it would have been two
seperate trades:
2/6/06 6:40 STO 53 EURGBP 0.6831
2/8/06 2:10 BTC 45 EURGBP 0.6871 -40 x 45 = - 1800
2/10/06 8:05 BTC 8 EURGBP 0.6838 -7 x 8 = -56
=============
-1856 / 53 = -35.58 pips
2/9/06 13:01 STO 53 EURGBP 0.6874
2/10/06 8:05 BTC 45 EURGBP 0.6838 +36 x 45 = +1620
2/10/06 8:16 BTC 8 EURGBP 0.6835 +39 x 8 = +312
=============
+1932 / 53 = +36.45 pips
Two trades, one winner, one loser. Your track record has
a number of other losing trades concealed by C2’s accounting
methods.
I have read your system description but you are right, I did not
analyze your trade history on a trade-by-trade basis until today.
I see that you have a tendency to close out winners quickly but
hold on to losers. You also do some averaging down, though not
as excessively as some.
I do not believe in 100% win rates not because I am lazy, but
because in my 20+ years in this business I have come across
a number of such systems, all of which crashed and burned,
taking their developers down with them. However, on closer
examination I see that Risk Averse FX is not, under FIFO
accounting rules, really a 100% wins system, so you and
your system may not suffer the usual fate.
I see that you have changed the subscription terms as of today.
I will probably subscribe, or at least go through the trial to see if
I can trade it.
You 've got it Schmitty.
I’m exploiting the non-fifo method of accounting of this site to illustrate the good management of the system.
As there are some temporary losing trades, it is paradoxal to show 100% win, I agree with you.
Nevertheless, your analysis is demonstrating that the risk is kept very low, unlike many other high win% systems.
You know what I think? At least on the forex systems, open trades should be closed and re-opened every night.
This accounting method would be even better than the fifo (first-in, first out) you mentionned and much closer to reality, as forex real life spot market contracts are closed and re-opened everyday (rollover).
It’s nice to chat with you, Schmitty.
Please excuse me for the previous post…
and respect for still being alive after 20 years of trading 
