Responding To Kevin Davey's #2 Rule


I’m new here. But, I want to respond to Kevin Davey’s #2 rule:

Why would a vendor want to give you the answers to all of those questions about all of his rules? You are the competition. Are you looking for ideas for yourself by asking for specifics like this?

I think a vendor should give general guidelines about how he trades his system but without having to give up all of his trade secrets.

As I said, I am new here but do all of you all think like this?

Excellentt post. Yes, you are right. No vendor would want to give away the “secrets” to the system, but could still tell you a lot without comprimising that secrecy.

General guidelines, as you said, are perfect, along as it is something you can check to see if vendor complied - since that is the whole point.

I personally would have no problems answering any of those questions. The only ones I’d refuse to give are specific ones related to entry and exits.

I’m curious what others think too.


Business 101.

You have to weigh the Obligation of the Vendor to share with his/her Customers exactly WHAT they are buying (and the Value it creates when they do so) with the exposure it creates to potential competitors when they do so.

Do you want to know EXACTLY how the technology behind your hybrid car works before you agree to buy it? Most people do. Would a car company refuse to show you what’s under the hood?

Do you want to know exactly how the business software you are thinking of buying for your Company works before you agree to depend on it every day? Smart businesspeople do.

Does that give your competition an opportunity to perhaps “knock your product/service” off? Yes. But - it comes with the territory.

Experienced Business Development/Sales/Marketing business people understands this paradox and learn to ignore it. It comes with the territory. You have to focus on building a better mousetrap and delivering superior Value to your Customers - that’s the differentiator that counts in the log run.

System developers who need to worry about someone stealing their "rules"

aren’t seasoned business people. They don’t get it and most of them will not develop Customer Loyalty (if they get any subscribers at all).

The solution to this problem is easy - sell a lifetime subscription to your system instead of monthly subscriptions. Now you can reveal the product to qualified prospects - then plan on selling a finite number of subscriptions and be done with the product. The problem system developers keep bumping into at C2 is WHERE you are trying to sell your product (C2) and HOW you are trying to sell it (i.e., monthly subscriptions).

Customers have a right to know what they are buying and Vendors still have an obligation to show them if asked. If you don’t believe that - look at the way YOU buy products and services - you probably read all the functional specs, the technical manual, ask questions, etc. Treat Customers like you want to be treated. Business 101.


How much to share is always a good question.

I would say that a vendor should provide a set of performance guidelines and/or expectations as well as information related to actually trading the system.

Anything more is unnecessary as the trade record is published on C2 and gives away too much information already.

Example of loss expectation: Your system does not use stops and buys/sells based on some timing signal. The reality is that a subscriber should "expect" to lose their shirt and pants (if they are wearing them).

Example of loss expectation #2: Same system as above, but a loss is held to a maximum of 2% per trade and trades a maximum of once per day, plus rescales everyday. A subscriber can expect to loss no more than 2% in one day and 10% over 1 week.

Example of profit expectation: Based on 4 months of live trade data and 2 years of test trade data, the system produced x% yield.

A subscriber, if given this type of information, can trade a system without surprises and know when things are not going right.

I am not saying that I have done the best job possible, but have a look at my system description on VP Trader for an example of defining expectations without giving away trade secrets. I would also challenge each vendor to notify subscribers when the system goes outside the expectation limits and to advise subs what to do. "Stop", "Proceed with Caution", etc.



I agree with most of your post but not all. Look at Coke, KFC, etc. They do not tell their secret formulas but they have a very successful business plan.

NO. But I guess we are all anal in our own way. (I finally worked out ALL the rules to my venture into futures systems and went from 10-12 hour [fairly lax] days to 2 hour days. Thankfully as that was for the past couple of years!)

I took 6 weeks off like this and then an extra this week. . .so yeah - too much time on my hands. But the “anus” in me will soon be onto the next project (probably into how to best gain exposure or “popularity”)



[LINKSYSTEM_37449582] - fyi, a simple scientific analysis will reveal that my C2 history with the above system is in line with 10 years of data from my website: Astute eyeballs can capture the frothy longer-term reward by getting in now;)

Case in point, here is a rolling 52-week chart. It spikes higher and falls quicker, but the end result is the same as positions are closed out. [I account for ease of charting the full premium once the call option is sold into my account. . .when in fact this gradually rises (I’d have to log the option closing price daily, too) as "time" decays - so C2 will be smoother/but same end results.]

Too funny - "The reality is that a subscriber should “expect” to lose their shirt and pants (if they are wearing them)."

I spend much time bantering about my systems and generalities, but wrt my descriptions - it is plain jane. If you build it they will come.

I guess I could lower my rates to near FREE too! It might get some C2 sub fees for me (I currently have none). But I know these are at least what they are worth and will patiently wait until I get them. They can’t hide from me for long!

Much Regards,


And your maximum exposure to them is, what, $5 - $6 bucks? They are most often spontaneous decisions by consumers who are risking nothing if they elect to drop that $5 or $6 bucks on them.

Try $10,000 or $20,000 or more.


Once again, you have killed a good thread by turning it into all about you, the length of your days, your time off, your website, and your performance.

Maybe sometimes you contribute a nugget of value, but no one wants to look through a mountain of self serving posts to find it.

Please, please, please do not this anymore.



As always - best to Kevin!

(now simmer down, 'ol boy. God knows C2 traffic is severely lacking of substance, so forgive my expression on this open forum)



Good points.

I agree that there are definitely things a Vendor can do to “mitigate” the lack of vision that Customers have into what you do every day and how you do it when you are making decisions and taking actions that directly affect their money. Excellent and regular communication is one of the few things you can do.

There is only so much you can do, however, and let’s be honest - people treat their money differently than almost everything else they have. It’s unique in that respect.

Being unique - it requires that we understand that phenomenom and sell around it/into it. In others words, to sell products that focus on money, a Vendor has to DEAL with it, whether they want to or not.

If they can not or will not accept that fact - perhaps they should find another career…

I think that ANY Vendor who tries to make substantial revenue off subscriptions from a product that immediately and materially affects someone’s investment capital will ALWAYS have the same problem unless they codify the rules for their product and sell the code to Customers. The day-to-day involvement of a developer/administrator is just an element that in this Day and Age is unneeded and one that creates unnecessary problems that can be avoided.


Sure, you are absolutely right that much of what we are talking about is psychology.

A vendor should be able to define the risks they are taking, even if they have to admit that the stops they use are very discretionary and based on mood, etc.

Are they unlimited? yes/no

If no, what is the typical range?

As a subscriber, I want to know when a vendor has gone off their rocker!

Even so, some people will have trouble with any loss, but you just can’t deal with that type of person.



I think how a system is set up and controlled or manipulated is completely up to the vendor.

There is only one thing that really matters on C2. Is a system that is longterm profitable, with good stats (Sharpe/Sortino, Profit Factor, APD, max DD, etc. etc.)

Trying to regulate a nonworking system (as 98% plus on C2 are), is like asking whether King Tut would prefer Diet Coke or Pepsi. He is dead; his interests do not matter. It would be more useful to prevent people from subscribing to hapless systems in the first place.

For the very very few systems that work, trying to place harnesses, bits and handcuffs on a vendor seems ill advised. If someone has a system that really works, you should instead prostrate and bow to him/her, hoping that they remain willing to let others subscribe, and for a reasonable price.

Tell that to the Subscribers of MVP-3…

Sorry, you may have misunderstood my point.

What I am saying is that a vendor should reveal a system’s performance and risk expectations. I am not saying that any amount of risk is necessarily bad, it is more a matter of choice (so to speak).

I am not saying that a vendor should compromise their system design, just inform people what to expect.

Take Chaos Trader as an example, “Derek”, was clear that his system was high risk, but he never said that one should expect a 40% loss in 2-days. If he knew that 40% loss in 2 days was perfectly acceptable for the system, he could have said so. Sure, that would put off a few (if not all subscribers), but at least they can’t say they were not warned.

Back to the main point, Derek could have shared this system expectation without telling anyone anything proprietary about his system.



"… If someone has a system that really works, you should instead prostrate and bow to him/her, hoping that they remain willing to let others subscribe, and for a reasonable price."

Irony, your name is Index.

it seems as ironic as waking up in the morning, and realizing that breathing is an essential part of respiration.

I must say I wholeheartedly agree with this post – especially the last sentence.

Not everyone buying a product wants to understand every aspect of how it works. Some just want to know that it makes them feel good. These are personality traits and not everyone is the same.

Some people will want to buy a bright and shiny new red car just because they like the way it looks and how they think it will make them feel when they are driving it. These people are not the type that would want to review all the documentation and try to understand how every nut and bolt works before they drive the car off the lot.

So, if there are only 3 bright and shiny new red cars left, and there are 5 impulsive buyer who like the cars and 5 analytical buyers who like the cars but want to spend more time looking under the hood first, who do you think is going to lose out on getting one of those 3 remaining cars?

That is funny on so many levels I can’t decide if you’re kidding or not. I’ve decided to go with the supposition you don’t know what “irony” is, and will take what you wrote at face value. I apologize to everyone for feeding this troll, and will just put it on ignore.

You post a stupid "Irony, your name is Index. " which had nothing to do with my post.

For the record, you are a substantially brain-deprived idiot. On your best days