There are two systems who have been advertising heavily - each seems to have a week or so active trading history:
– One made all its profit in a single day.
– The other basically just has 3 days in a row of profits.
Is it me, or is this a classic of unrealistic expectations? What trader would subscribe and seriously trade either???
At least a month is required by me before I even look at it seriously. A couple of months before I even would think of subscribing.
And as Dustin pointed out, a site advertising to manage money, without even being registered?
> What trader would subscribe and seriously trade either???
I suppose the vendor will also be happy if they subscribe and not trade it seriously. But seriously: Advertising is their only hope of getting any subscribers at this stage. I don’t know if it works for them, but as long as there are people who buy diluted water for medicine, there is probably hope for them too.
advertising week old systems just seems like a waste of money, that is all… Who do they expect to subscribe, newbies???
I think it is just better to offer subscriptions for $0, and try to get people to track your system while you grow…
Mayne Newbies shouldn’t be allowed to Subscribe til they’ve been on the site for 3 months? Maybe systems shouldn’t be able to accept subscriptions til they have a 6 month trading history?
I’m not being entirely serious, but there may be some principles there worth exploring for all sensible investors?
What’s wrong with free enterprise, and free markets? Why restrict someone who wants to lose their money quickly, and force them to wait six months before being able to do so?
I think you answered your own thought. Sensible investors will be sensible about their decisions, precluding the need for your semi-serious rule suggestions.
Everyone here is an adult risking their own capital. All necessary warnings are in place. If the site administrator starts trying to babysit who can do what, the only thing around here will be the sound of crickets.
People that come here are by their nature are do-it-yourself types. Try putting limitations on them (in effect telling them they aren’t qualified to make their own decisions), and they won’t be back.
C2 is fine as is. Most do-it-yourself inverters will lose money, and that’s a fact. At least here, they have the best fighting chance I’ve seen available.
I agree with the others. What I really hate is all kind of arrogant "protection" rules, like "no daytrading of stocks with less than $25K" (and at the same time allow people to trade forex with $200 and 1:50 leverage!).
Besides, there is no natural bound in time such that performance statistics are unreliable before and reliable after it. See also the thread "Sharpe ratio and number of days". I argued there that the simple selection rule "consider only systems that are x days old and choose the one with the highest value on some performance statistic" will lead to a bias against old systems, regardless of the value of x. In other words, whatever bound you choose (3 months, 12 months, etc.) it will never be enough. So apart from the moral aspects, I think that it is simply a bad rule.
What we have here in a physical world is heaven until people tell others how to live their lives and then we have a place that oscillates between heaven and hell.
I agree people shouldn’t be blocked from subscribing. Some people might be 15 year traders; they know what they are looking for.
I wouldn’t mind a minimal block on new systems from taking subscribers money until they have a track record for at least a month, unless the vendor has other system that have some sort of history. These systems are especially vulnerable to failure.
