Ridiculous filling

for H.A.T. - Hyper Aggressive Trading.

Clearly there are problems with H.A.T. - Hyper Aggressive Trading. The last 2 trades:

BTO200SWAKMSOX Nov05 462.5 call8.5010/10/05 15:06STC20021.9010/10/05 17:20$268,000$0$0$268,000

BTO750SXXKOSOX Nov05 475 call8.4210/7/05 12:55STC75017.8010/7/05 16:11$703,500$0$0$703,500

1). SOX NOV 475 Call, it is impossible to sell at 17.8 on 10/07/2005.

2). SOX Nov 462.5 call never reached 21.9 on 10/10/2005. 21.9 is the last trade which may be more than one week ago. There was no trade yesterday for SOX Nov 462.5 call. There was no bid at 21.9 also yesterday for SOX Nov 462.5 Call.

Clearly C2 checks the option price after market close. C2 checks if the last price can fill the limit price the system developer set. However the last price could be one week ago. If there is no trade after the order is sent and if the bid is less than the limit price, the order should not be filled.

Dave, thanks for pointing this out. These kind of things are really discouraging and misleading not only to the subscribers but also to other system developers who are insulted by this. I was kinda of shocked when i saw that too. I was thinking “wow, i could never beat a $750k gain in one trade, so why even try”.

I am a new system provider here and my charts aren’t even updated to reflect my recent trades while a fake ~million dollar gain is updated and even shown as the one of the BEST performing systems.

What is the issue here?

Just check the 5 day intraday chart for SOX. It is impossible for SOX call to have such two big gain trades.

It impresses us that systems’s other trades might have simliar problems.

I understand the issue actually. There is NO way one can get that fill. What I meant by my question was that how come mathhew is not catching this error?

It’s one hell of an error…

A large number of systems on C2 are not tradeable in the real world due to things like this. Suggesting huge trading volumes in thinly traded stocks, or options, which could never actually be executed at the quantities and prices shown is common.

MK’s promised “realism index” should flag these types of systems, but I think it would be better to eliminate any system that very clearly could not be traded in a real account. Or at least relegate them to a category that identifies them as fantasy “systems” that can only be traded on paper.

I realize that C2’s revenue stream comes largely from the system providers, and the more the merrier. But systems like “100% suck at trading” (to pick just one … whose name alone is an obvious joke) should not be presented as any kind of realistic trading system that someone could follow in a real account.

P.S. I just tried to search for “100% suck at trading” and it has apparently vanished. Or has it simply changed its name to Hyper Aggressive Trading and maintained the existing trading record ?? Hmmmm…

Hi Randy,

I agree with you on everything except this part:

"I realize that C2’s revenue stream comes largely from the system providers, and the more the merrier. "

The listing fee that is charged is very minimal and I dont think it brings in a higher revenue stream than the 30% of subscription payments which obviously come from subscribers. So I believe the ultimate goal for Matthew is to satisfy the subscribers and he IS doing that. Otherwise, why would he offer to create a “realism index”? I definately do not think that it is Matthew’s intention to bring in a lot of simulation systems. It just happens that way and theres no way anyone can stop this. Think about it, 95% of people lose trying to trade. So why should we expect a higher success rate in trading systems? We shall expect the same percentage of winning systems as winning traders. Indeed, 95% of trading systems will not make money, but there will always be the 5%. Just pick the most realistic one and trade it. This site is about discovering the realistic trading system and it CAN be done.

This is where I think Matthew (sorry my friend!) really needs to tighten up his execution tracking engine. For example - on option systems, if a fillable tick hasn’t occured since the order was placed, then the fill should not occur, regardless of where the bid/ask sits. Limit orders should only be filled if price PASSES the limit price by at least the market spread (i.e., 1 tick on the ES/SP, 3 pips on the EURUSD, etc.). While it may add overhead to the C2 engine, trading volume should be tracked for all orders in queue. If an order is placed for a quantity that exceeds say the 5 minute average volume, then the order only gets partial fills for as many 5 minute periods as it takes to fill the entire order (slippage will be more realistic) - limit orders might never be fully filled - which brings up issues for stop losses and targets, I know - but at least this is more REAL. The C2 “Account” should also be treated as a real world account - Negative balances do not occur - EVER. The engine should auto-liquidate any open positions if the account equity drops below some threshold (say 5k). What’s the point of promoting a system with a 95% drawdown record?!! (we won’t even talk about some of the “Best” systems with 200+% drawdown!) Who would subscribe to it?!! As I have suggested elsewhere - If a system vendor blows out his C2 account, then his account is closed, and he/she should be required to purchase a new one and start over. I really don’t see the point of polluting the database with systems that are effectively scams that profit from the inefficiencies of the C2 system in its current iteration.

As many of us in here have also commented, we need to have a couple of statistics added to the panoply. Worst Drawdown (as percent of previous equity peak) and Average Drawdown. Subscribers are much more likely to select a system with say 100% annualised gain and 20% worst case drawdown, than a system with 2000% annualised gain and 200% worst case drawdown. Unfortunately for the subscriber, they only get to see the gain stat, not the drawdown one.

Agreed. When I take care of the system housekeeping issues I will try to work on this. - MK

Since it trades SOX, the SIZE is not a problem, I think. As long as the filling is reasonable, the trade is acceptable. For example, a buy order is filled at ask price or the last price after the order is sent. We assume here no individual is able to move the sox index, can you?


As with all investments, everyone needs to do their own due dilligence. For my own system testing, I am entering C2 trades at the same time I do real trades of the same size to see how accurate the C2 fills are. I should be done with testing by the end of the year, and will see how effective and representative the fill algorithm on C2 really is.

Paul King

PMKing Trading LLC


Matthew, I emailed several times but getting no response lately. Two trades should be corrected:

1. UFNJB - the bid was at 1.25 and my 1.05 limit was not filling!! So I changed it to market and still bid is at 1.25 and I filled at 1.00!

It should have filled at least at 1.20.

2. QAAJW - The bid was 2.00 with 800 contracts on the bid and I sold at mkt, it filled at 1.85. After the fill, the bid was still at 2.00.

Maybe your quotes are heavily lagged? i dont understand this. i am trying to make this work and i’ve just had a lot of hassle than satisfaction.

My win loss record is now misleading because I did not lose on the UFNJB trade. Please correct these issues. Until then I can’t place any orders in this system.

Also, my performance chart is not updating at all. Matthew please provide some response.

Thank You


Thanks for fixing the fill issues and the performance chart.

However, the win/loss records and the corresponding percentages have not been adjusted. Please adjust the win loss records. It is supposed to be 6 wins and 2 losses and the % should be higher.

Thank You very much

Ok, so as you said in your email, I now know that $0 is counted as a loss. So i broke even on one trade but still have to take it as a loss. Alright, i’ll take it like a man!

What SHOULD have happened is the closed trades adjed to correct close amount and NOT reopen my trades in a time of two hurricanes sending me from $1.2 MILLION in POSITIVE closed trades to neg $500K in one day.

I DEMAND these peoples systems who have nothing better to do but cry about my trades have THEIR TRADES reopened and we will see about why it is that its ok for them to get slide on quote differential but not anyone else?

This is an inccorect thing you have done to my system and I require action taken to correct it.

What? you thought I was going to say nothing about losing $1.2 million in profitable trades because other system owners want to cry to matt about something that is none of their business?

See the posts here