“We think that also all the systems of a provider should be evaluated together to offer a panoramic of the provider himself.”
"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%"
Fair enough. Your average return is about 90%.
Your rating is 999
Timac’s return is about 1577%
Rating is 970
The Truth’s return is -4%
Rating is 70.
So using the total % return Seleukos is about 6%
of Timac. 6% x 970 = 58. Let’s use Truth’s 70 as the
baseline for zero return. 70 + 58 = 128.
If we use % return as you suggest shouldn’t
Seleukos’ panoramic ranking be about 128 relative
to Timac’s 970? How do you figure your 90%
should rank you higher than Timac’s 1577% return?
"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."
With all due respect, are your clients paying to paper trade? In real life
can you “correct” bad trades? Try sending an order down to the
New York energy pits to buy 11 crude oils. Call them an hour later
and tell them you only wanted to buy 1 crude. See if they will give
you your money back. Brokers see these kinds of errors all the
time. Guess what? You don’t get a “correction”, you just better deal
with it. If you sell 11 and you meant to sell 1, then you just buy 10 back ASAP. If you didn’t notice the error…that’s your fault not your
broker’s, not Matthew’s, and not the floor’s.
Last thing, you should be VERY happy. Your
Seleukos Intraday Currency System comes up on top if you
click “Best Systems” “Forex” even though it’s return is 70%.
Meanwhile, Hawk-fx (+696%) and Aestreux Fund (+451%) aren’t
even on that list… Matthew has been more than kind in
your “rankings” IMHO.
This is the reason why we asked for a list.
Some obvious concepts…
obviously we think that trading and mistyping are not recoverable.
But we pointed a question: we are NOT NOT NOT sure to have mistyped! You should read what written. The reason is that ALL orders disappeared (as succeeded to someone else). In a market, existing orders cannot disappear. I think that explaining twice is enough.
Matthew Klein should be so kind to explain the following: while you have not understood yet that performance is not the unique element, reading on the explication you can see that:
“…One of the most important factors is the length of time we have been able to observe the performance of the trader. Another key factor is the amount by which the trader over-performs or under-performs the S&P 500 index. Finally, the choppiness of the trader’s results is taken into account. Certainly a more consistent trader will be rated more highly than a trader with erratic results.” Not only performance. Indeed, it is not correct to focalize in performances only. MOREOVER KEEP IN ACCOUNT THAT FIVE SYSTEMS ARE NOT ONE. It is a diversification that speaks about the validity of the systems. Moreover, not discretionary systems. AND OUR REALISM FACTOR IS VERY HIGH. ALSO THIS ONE IS IMPORTANT. It seems that somebody else thinks that a classification of ratings can be useful.
The 999 is completely and totally undeserved. There is absolutely nothing special about the Seleukos Finance forecasting advisories. They are completely pedestrian, “mistypings” or not.
As Sam said, there are plenty of things which for whatever reasons, are not ranked ahead. Why in the world you want to shine light on average performances is beyond me.
I noticed you quietly ignored my last post regarding the real distaste over your requests. I will repeat below, and see whether you ignore them again.
================= Quoting you: ====================
"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.
Just for fun, I recast your original post the way I would have written it for you
Because we are a well rated monkey, it is obvious and human wait, weren’t you the high monkey??? , that we would know if it is possible to have a classification of ratings (before we tumble down the list behind the other advisors who deserve to be ahead of our 999). In other words, a list of the (best) ratings of C2 even though seleukos does not deserve to be there?
Many thanks and please hurry, because it is time to get more bananas, before the other undeserving monkeys below me take them all while I am trying to find the flea powder. And has anyone seen Tarzan or Jane?
"Matthew Klein should be so kind to explain the following: while you have not understood yet that performance is not the unique element…"
Yeah, I got that, but you posted ONLY your annual % as a reason for your 999 ranking. I just quoted the criteria you used to explain your ranking.
As far as other stuff: Hawk has been around longer than most of your systems, much longer than your FX, has as good a RF, and he is only ranked @ 940. Moreover, he isn’t even on the best FX systems. While according to C2 you have the “best” FX system while you have a low sharpe, small return, low win%, and short track record. Please show me a single criteria you are near the top in… other than the “999” ranking.
Let’s be clear, I’m in no way criticizing your systems. I AM saying your
999 ranking is vacuous if not flat out misleading.
Check this one out if you think “excellent” ratings mean a lot:
tERRANCE MORIARTY has a Collective2 Rating of 760
Tfx-Lahar
Cumu $ ($143,874)
Annualized % -273.51% over 192 days
Sharpe Ratio -1.356
Max Drawdown 150.56%
As I have said before, the C2 Ratings will be undergoing review and change soon.
