Because we are well rated, it is obvious and human that we would know if it is possible to have a classification of ratings. In other words, a list of the (best) ratings of C2
Many thanks,
somehow, the ratings seem not to have a basis in reality. I understand they have something to do with your system. However, many people have no systems, yet have a rating. I place no stock in it.
If they have a successful system, then it will appear in the systems categories (hot hands, etc.)
If ratings are related to systems, I wonder how it could be possible that there are ratings without systems… please explain. Many thanks.
Ernesto Giorgi
seleukos
I have no knowledge of anyone with a rating who has not created a system.
How is the rating calculated?
try Francis
Reinhard Schu
Ah. Both software developers with private “development systems.” I should make usre those systems didn’t factor into scoring.
I have no knowledge of anyone with a rating who has not created a system.
You should know better than to throw down a challenge. To a child with a hammer, EVERYTHING looks like a nail!!! : )
Nevertheless,
vis polemica vituperanda est
I would know if you can publish a ratings list.
Yes, I can. I have been meaning to do that.
"I would know if you can publish a ratings list."
Boy, Matthew has bigger fish to fry IMHO. Like adding MIT’s to order options, ranking systems by risk/reward, fixing the Sharpe, having some
self auditing mechanism in place to avoid fantasy trades like the recent forex, fixing RF, and so on.
The so called “ratings” aren’t worth a whole lot. I changed my non-trading system name and reduced the “subscriptions cost” to the minimum, extended my “free trial period” to the maximum (just to see how this works) and my “rating” went from 700+ to 70 in a day. I had no trades and no subscribers. I don’t care about my rating, and seeing how it’s “adjusted” gives me little faith in anyone else’s.
Check out the “best” forex systems list. Aestreux Fund isn’t even listed, even though it’s clearly the “best” system lately. His C2 Rating: 744, which is on par with systems that have never traded a thing. There are vendors with 995+ ratings that have systems haven’t made a cent.
agree.
anyone has a lower rating than me ? My system only made one trade on C2 and it was profitable. My rating is 6.
I’m not particularly happy with the C2 Ratings now, either. It’s a project I’ve been meaning to get to. Maybe I’ll have some time in the upcoming week.
I completely agree with Sam. I think the whole ratings thing should be trashed!!! I ignore it completely. It looks like a solution looking for a nonexistent problem to solve. Do people who help others or hurt others on forums get ratings?
It makes some people feel less signficant and others feel improperly important. Frankly, I thought the request to get a list to put himself on top was not in good taste. I didnt think the person’s systems were all that special, how in the world it deserved a 999 is beyond me. In comparison to Rimac, Astreaux, AT-Dow, they were rather pale.
People whose systems do well already have Hot Hands, Most Popular, Grandma, Slow & Steady, Best Systems - Stock/Forex.Futures, as well as appearing in top when presented as All Trading Systems
Why rub some people’s noses in the dirt, who have done nothing wrong? This has bothered me for a while. Why not chuck it, Matthew?
> It’s a project I’ve been meaning to get to.
Don’t bother on my account. As I said:
"Boy, Matthew has bigger fish to fry…I don’t care about my rating"
Your time would be better spent elsewhere.
The monkeys , the Truth…
A baobab exists in Africa where every branch is occupied by one monkey.
The more high the branch and the more important the monkey.
Viceversa, the more low the branch and the less important the monkey.
Every monkey that comes down to earth and watches the baobab, admits that the other monkeys are arranged correctly on the baobab.
The problem, for every grounded monkey, is that nobody understands that his own correct branch should be the higher on the tree.
So many and many monkeys are screaming, to explain the situation, to expalin the Truth.
Only one is surely not screaming: the higher monkey, sitting down on the higher branch.
The parallel between ratings and branchs of the baobab could be obvious?
Another thing: the Truth is that monkeys have not the sense of ridiculous, while homo sapiens sapiens does
or perhaps not?
For a period the Truth can burn you, but after a certain time, perhaps…
Ernesto Giorgi seleukos
The parallel between ratings and branchs of the baobab could be obvious?
Quite. The reason for initiating this post was a monkey screaming for undeserved high attention.
Collective2 is reserved to monkeys.
If not a monkey, why writing here?
The worst is to be a monkey on the lower branchs.
Classifying monkeys can be useful, so the monkey-snakes can use their poison: also poison should be used. Why buying a Rolex if not monkey? And so on. Communists are perhaps monkeys without success? Where the first sentiment is not greed, not fear but envy. Not one monkey can have a good rating without years of experience. Simply, someone can not stand his own situation. Let write the ones who have some capacity. Monkey obviously. To be a monkey is natural. The innatural is to refuse the monkeyness and scream. Please scream and accept your position. Who cares? If you have a new possible customer,is it easiest to show him a good rating or not?
Why are you here? TO USE THE BEST SYSTEMS OR NOT? If so, a good classification can be useful. Ratings can be ameliorated: after that, if you have no good rating you should not write. Amen. Per aspera ad astra.
Forgotten: the winners have always reason.
When a loser screams, it is ridiculous: no one cares of the reason of failing. Surely reasons are many, but nobody cares. Nor the replies. Without hope…
