Seleukos C2 Rating: 999
Seleukos systems: Nothing special
Seleukos attention getting attempts: Amazing…
You should know better than to throw down a challenge. To a child with a hammer, EVERYTHING looks like a nail!!! : )
I’ve never heard that one before! Now that is funny, baa ahahahahaha
Correct. Nothing special. But we are not able to do better. We would learn from someone that can teach us how to do, perhaps showing examples with his systems. Someone asserting "Nothing special" should be someone qualified. Otherwise it can sounds strange at least, if not ridiculous. The discussion is closed because we are gaining no money.
lol. Noooo LOL
Seleukos I’ve printed it and I’ll show your “wisdom” to my friends. Thank you a lot for good laugh. I very often compare myself with monkey. Two buttons. Red and Green. If a monkey choose right button it’ll have a banana. 
But I never thought about hierarchy between monkeys. Thanks a lot.
Regarding C2 rating. It might be simpler to make closed systems by a vendor visible. After that anybody will be able to make his/her own rating which doesn’t depend from C2.
Eu
P.S. 2Seleukos lol
"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"
“Nevertheless,
vis polemica vituperanda est
I would know if you can publish a ratings list.”
"Collective2 is reserved to monkeys…The more high the branch and the more important the monkey. "
“The innatural is to refuse the monkeyness and scream. Please scream and accept your position. Who cares?”
"Correct. Nothing special. But we are not able to do better. We would learn from someone that can teach us how to do, perhaps showing examples with his systems. Someone asserting “Nothing special” should be someone qualified. Otherwise it can sounds strange at least, if not ridiculous. The discussion is closed because we are gaining no money."
Five systems. Two losing, one lost strongly then came back. One up and now coming back down, and one making money for the moment. The “high” monkey hit his head on too many branches falling down when reaching for one too many bananas.
The problem isn’t the rating. The problem is the complete lack of humility. If the “high monkey” would stop screaming for a high branch, especially when it is undeserved, he might gain wisdom. One thinks you might have learned when the tide came in over the last couple of weeks, and washed many monkeys (profitable systems) out of their temporary perch.
Ross I know, I know. But it’s really brilliant around-trading humor that I have to admit
From other point if you’re looking for Holy Grail it’s better to start building it yourself instead of screaming from the ground near the baobab lol
However, my point is that C2 should not rank system vendors, but C2 must provide full available for C2 history of a vendor. Closed systems, changed descriptions, changed names… what else? C2 provides full info as it possible, and people ranks system vendor by the info as they wish.
IMHO, purpose of C2 is providing of “true” info. How people will use it it’s not a problem of C2 lol
Eu
AMERICA Index Futures - Seleukos Cumu $ ($1,240)
Seleukos (C2 Rating: 999)
Aestreux Fund Cumu $ $483,605
aestreux (C2 Rating: 747)
Who is the better monkey? I know which ranking I’ll look at.
"IMHO, purpose of C2 is providing of “true” info. How people will use it it’s not a problem of C2 lol "
Um, er, how is losing $1,240 better than making $483,606?
And why is Seleukos Intraday Currency System
(after real-life slippage ($155,155.14))
ranked as the “best forex system” and
Aestreux Fund (Cumu $ $483,605) isn’t even rated?
“The Truth” is what it is.
Is this some kind of reunion? Why was I not invited?
Hmm. In this baobab analogy I (subscriber) must be a piece of fruit hanging of the tree, waiting to be eaten by some fat monkey.
But seriously. I don’t consider the original question inappropriate, certainly not in the wording chosen. Yes, the ranking method should be improved. And yes, inactive systems should be displayed too. But given the fact that there is a ranking, there should be a ranking list.
I assume that the purpose of the rankings is to offer newbies some guidance when they chose a system. Then it is quite useless to display the rankings only when someone posts in the forum. If the intention is that more weight should be given to some posts, then I would prefer a ‘recommended’ button for each post. The function of this would be that readers can recommend posts that they like, and above each post one can display the number of recommendations. Anti-recommendations would be fun too.
Jules
ps I prefer to view myself as a dog that just planted his flag on the tree. Honestly, I couldn’t resist!
"How is the Collective2 Rating calculated?
… Another key factor is the amount by which the trader over-performs or under-performs the S&P 500 index…"
AMERICA Index Futures - Seleukos Cumu $ ($1,240)
Seleukos Intraday Forex Futures System
Annualized % -25.25%
System started 3/10/2006 (11 weeks ago)
Seleukos (C2 Rating: 999)
Aestreux Fund Cumu $ $483,605
Annualized % 3209.38%
aestreux (C2 Rating: 747)
Ross Canfield (C2 Rating: 749)
Cumu $ $0 Trades 0
Palsun Anand has a Collective2 Rating of 783.
Cumu $ ($42,731)
Max Drawdown 142.46%
System started 5/21/2006 (1 week ago)
Max Drawdown 30.47%
I’d really like to see that formula Not placing a single trade
gives you a better ranking than being at an Annualized % 3209.38%
with 140 trades (no offense Ross). Or losing all your equity twice over,
rolling out new systems whenever you go belly up, or lose 250K is better than making $483K with minimal DD’s? Really, come on, how do these ratings “help” new users? Some above 700 (“which is excellent”)
would have bankrupted $100K accounts several times over.
or Sam, with a rousing rating of 71. What in the world did he do to earn that?
"or Sam, with a rousing rating of 71. What in the world did he do to earn that?"
Sam Cook (C2 Rating: 69)
Sam dropped even lower. No posts, no trades, no changes.
Short Term Breakout System ($171,171) rating 231
Test System Surfing the Moving Average ($90,001) Rating of 289
It seems it is somehow worse to lose $1000 than $90,000 to $170,000.
Again, not a problem for me, but if there is a use for the ratings it would
be good to know how they are arrived at. In the past I changed the system name, and REDUCED “fees” to $10/quarter (I don’t actually sell anything, I opened the “system” as a test to see how C2 works).
maybe its like golf, the lower your score the better…
I intend to make the scoring more transparent soon. For now, let me simply say that each night, C2 calculates a "raw score" based on your results for all systems ever started (not test systems). Factors include length of time you have been tracked by C2, drawdowns, profitability, sharpe, etc. Then this raw score is divided into percentiles. Thus the person with the highest raw score gets 999. The person with the lowest score gets 1.
I must admit that the scores do not seem particularly astute right now, which is why I will change the raw-scoring algorithm. When I have done so, I will post how the scores are assigned. Please hang in there until this is done. - Matthew
"Please hang in there until this is done."
Thanks, will do, but once again, these ratings are not an issue for me. IMHO, your time would be better spent showing a better rank-able
stat that shows Risk/Reward and correcting the:
"Risk of XX% account loss". Here is an example:
System Details: Swing Trader
Annualized % -3631.02% over 259 days
Sharpe Ratio 1.322
Max Drawdown 653.83% (20060302 to 20060514)
Risk of 20% account loss 1.2%
Risk of 50% account loss 0.0%
Risk of 100% account loss 0.0%
Well, I still think:
– the ranking should be deleted, as it seems to be completely redundant with existing metrics (how many different ways are there to evaluate and rank systems already???)
– that many people really have no idea what it stands for; until recently, I thought forum participation had something to do with it!!!
"Well, I still think:
– the ranking should be deleted, as it seems to be completely redundant with existing metrics (how many different ways are there to evaluate and rank systems already???)"
Not enough ;-). Still need a way to rank them in terms of Reward/Risk.
"-- that many people really have no idea what it stands for; until recently, I thought forum participation had something to do with it!!!"
I was sure it was "forum participation". I went from 700+ to under 70 in just a few days without making a trade… but I pissed as lot of people of in the forums (VBG).
"Well, I still think:
– the ranking should be deleted, as it seems to be completely redundant with existing metrics (how many different ways are there to evaluate and rank systems already???)"
Not enough ;-). Still need a way to rank them in terms of Reward/Risk.
"-- that many people really have no idea what it stands for; until recently, I thought forum participation had something to do with it!!!"
I was sure it was "forum participation". I went from 700+ to under 70 in just a few days without making a trade… but I pissed as lot of people of in the forums (VBG).
Ratings and performance?
Our 999 rating was the source of many discussions. Now that the waters seems calm, we present here numbers that you can calculate on your own. Our five systems are performing on yearly basis:
Seleukos currency overnight portfolio 308.01%
Seleukos energy futures 72.38%
Seleukos intraday currency system 74.99%
Seleukos intraday forex futures system -14.9%
America index future - seleukos 11.37%
This results in an average performance as 90.37%
Note that America officially started 78 days ago, but first operation is of May,22 that is 8 days ago, so really the yearly perfo should be 78*11.37/8 = 110.85%. This is due to the fact that WE WAITED FOR THE BEARISH MARKET, BECAUSE IN OUR OPINION THE ENDING PHASE OF THE BULL MARKET WAS DANGEROUS.
Another thing: Seleukos intraday forex futures system was well performing, but unfortunately a mistyping sold 11 contracts instead of one. This is well known to Matthew Klein, because at the same time we had all our operations canceled. Matthew decided that there was no room for a correction. We apologize with subscribers and we are trying to recovery the error with some discretional operations.
Frankly, in our opinion our rating is correct. If the rating itself is not well calculated, this is another question. But it keeps in account the sistematic trading and in our opinion this is correct. We think that also all the systems of a provider should be evaluated together to offer a panoramic of the provider himself.
Ernesto Giorgi seleukos
How many 999ers are there on C2 right now? Just curious 
