I think C2 have a issue with the % of the stats. I analize a few systems, and i see always the same. Im going to try to explain the issue.
When a system lost 50% of capital, C2 is counting that 50% is recover with a 50% of gain, but its not true you need 100% gain to stay in the same situation of before.
Example:
You have 50.000$ and lost 50% Total money 25.000$
You make 50% of the NEW money then (25000*0,5=12500) Then you have 37500. BUT not initial 50.000$
There is a big difference, and for me a big problem these, because you have -50% in a system and he make 50% and in your system is totally recover of this drawdown, but its not true it need still 25% plus to recover.
I hope i explain correctly the issue and you can study how to solve it, because when you lose money is very important know when system really recover himself and know the true about results, talking in $ that its the important.
Hi, A:
I think the issue you point out is one that anyone who looks at any trading performance report needs to keep in mind – not only people who look at C2 performance stats.
Indeed, the same caveat applies to performance metrics touted by all hedge funds, mutual funds, stocks, and ETFs. If a stock loses 50%, then you need to gain 100% of the remaining amount to make yourself whole. This is a mathematical truth that no one can deny, but I do not think it applies to C2 specifically.
It’s a good point, though; and is well worth remembering.
Matthew
Thats why its difficult to make money , if you lose 10% you need to make 11% just to break even so the odds are against you , not to mention spreads and costs , for example if the ES moved against you 5 points you are down 5.3 points and if it moved 5 points in your favor you are up 4.7 points , see the difference 4.7 vs 5.3 although the ES moved equally to either direction , ofcourse the situation is the opposite to MM .
I think normally dont work like you say.
The best example is one system that you enter and it lost 50% and few days later it recover 50% and in C2 appear that you are not losing money, because have 0% of performance on stats in C2.
But if you see your money you lost 25% that month.
And for example if the subscription is only pay if is profitable, it have even earn 10% that month but you lost about 18% that month, then is not true what you are showing.
Normally in some brokers or hedfund they take the money that you have in the start of the month, and make the stats from that money, then are real stats.
If you lost 50% you need recover 100% to have in 0% of profit/losses in that month , that are a true stats, not a stats that take in real time the money in that moment, and calculate from that, because then always the performance in C2 will be much better than the real performance, and some people cant understand why their accounts dont reflect that money.
For me there is a big issue in this point.
Think there is nothing wrong with the stats.
The monthly performances shown can 19t be added up as 1CA. 1D correctly points out: -10% and 10% doesn 19t equal 0%.
BUT in the overall 1CStatistics 1D (published underneath the 1CRecently closed trades 1D) the 1CCumul. Return 1D DOES in fact keep track of the exact return!
As does the graph, in our humble opinion.
So members should not only focus on the monthly stats but also examine the overall statistics where they get a good view of overall performance.
Best regards and success to all traders and members.
Sorry for the error, use of signs that are not printed exactly.
This should be better:
The monthly performances shown can not be added up as A. correctly points out: -10% and 10% doesn 19t equal 0%.
BUT in the overall Statistics, published underneath the Recently closed trades the Cumul. Return DOES in fact keep track of the exact return!
Yes, but here a extreme example.
You see a stats of a system, and all months earn between 10-12% and you say yeah!! fantastic system.
If i put 100k in the end of the year minium im going to double the money.
But here the reality, this system each month make the next: -50% and after that 60%, and do you know what is the reality? That ALL the months is losing money, but in stats as C2 show, you see that ALL months earn 10% !!
For me that stats are not real and you cant know exactly what a system is making with that type of stats, and to be honest is the first time that i see stats like that, normally they take the money on the start of the month and calculate the month performance on basis of that money.
I have real examples of this in C2, and one with my autotrading and im losing money but in C2 appear that im winning 
thats not real right?
There are quite many possibilities how you can lose money while the system chart shows profits (welcome to C2 :-). One example is when the system makes a losing trade with 1 contract and a winning trade with 2 contracts. As a result of your autotrade scaling you make both of these trades with 1 contract and end up getting only half of the profits.
Have you checked trade by trade how your trades and their size match the trades of the model account?
A Nevado -
What you are saying is factually wrong. You write:
"… to be honest is the first time that i see stats like that, normally they take the money on the start of the month and calculate the month performance on basis of that money…"
That is EXACTLY how C2 stats work.
When you see the monthly returns at the top of a C2 system page, that is how it is calculated: we take the marked-to-market total Model Account equity at the beginning of the month, look at the gain or loss at the end of the month (less subscription fees, and commissions and AutoTrading fees, which are all included), and then calculating a percentage on the initial equity at the start of the month. This is industry standard, and it’s exactly how C2 does it.
Matthew
Btw. would be nice to include annual % for each year which usually exists in this kind of return tables.
Absolutely! The tables should show the annual compounded returns based on performance after commissions and fees.
Safe Capital is currently down 113% in DEC , doesn’t make sense !
Makes sense because account value is $-3005. The position sizes in Safe Capital have grown to maximum (getting margin calls) in December. I guess he wanted to win it all back quickly.
This conversation is a good example of why it might be easier all around if the stats were calculated relative to initial capital, a fixed number. Drawdowns, runups, monthly return, etc. would be much easier to understand and track. Also, developers would no longer feel compelled to scale their position sizes to keep the statistics looking good.
What I am suggesting here is not a new idea. It is a common method of tracking system results.
Todd
