The opinions expressed in these forums do not represent those of C2, and any discussion of profit/loss is not indicative of future performance or success. There is a substantial risk of loss in trading. You should therefore carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. You should read, understand, and consider the Risk Disclosure Statement that is provided by your broker before you consider trading. Most people who trade lose money.

Strategies that i unsubscribed in past 2 year

I’ve been a C2 member since 2006. None of the strategies I started with exist on here today. For me, the reason why is immaterial… what’s important is finding a way to navigate safely around that fact while mitigating risk. It’s a fact that the systems I subscribe to today may not be here tomorrow. Even worse, the developer may abandon the system mid-trade, resulting in catastrophic account loss. As a result, I mitigate risk by actively managing open trades; setting and adjusting stop-losses as necessary (some systems set a stop-loss but never move it) while also setting and modifying exit (limit) targets on open trades (thus overriding the system developer). I also close out all trades at the end of the week, whereas the systems I use keep them open.


Hello Osutia,
I had the same experience. I would try a system. Thought it was great…then it would crash. I move on to another system. Over and over again. Until I finally left C2. I did find that the “extreme-os” was still listed, today, and it was the one of the many that I had used.
Do you feel conferrable letting me know which ones you have found reliable? Thanks Tom

Tom, you can still use the Grid and find “old” systems (more than 1,000 days for instance) with good return and low drawdown:
(Of course there is no guarantee that an old system will continue to perform in the future).

1 Like

I apologize if my question has already been answered…
Of the 17 strategies whcih you subscribed to, how many had more than three years of live track record at C2 (or somewhere similar) when you started your subscription?

It seems many of the failed strategies trade futures or forex or sell options. If someone just avoids strategies these type of systems plus sticking to systems with less than 35% max drawdown many of the failed systems can be avoided.

:100: you get it! Look at this log I have going: (Please Don't Comment!) Log of Lessons Learned From Closed Strategies I haven’t tracked how many fall into your categories but from what I can remember the majority are futures, forex, or sell options.

1 Like

There is nothing inherently “wrong” or “bad” with the Futures, the Forex or the options markets, what is important is how the trader manages the risk (via his stop loss and position sizing).

Did I say there was something inherently wrong with with futures or forex or options? A subscriber must themselves manage the risk of the trade leader not managing risk well. It is difficult for a sub to manage the risk of a leader making poor decisions when they give the leader such large leverage usage. Even if a leader manages risk well in the past with stops or exiting trades it does not mean they won’t suddenly stop.

Can you find me some good stock only strategies to add to my log of failed strategies? I find them much more rare. They of course fail, but as long as a leader doesn’t go all in on one stock a blow up of the strategy seems quite rare.

PS somehow I knew my comment would attract a defense of leverage by you.

My comment was of a general nature, not a critic about your post.

The important question to ask is this one: Do winning C2 stock strategies make more money than winning futures/forex/options strategies, on a risk adjusted-basis?

And if so, to what extent?

This study alone should keep you busy for years! :wink:

In my opinion, a good trading strategy will ALWAYS make more money if the trader uses leveraged financial instruments, assuming he can control the risk.


I actually agree with you on the leverage part but similar to your ideal leverage usage thread you can have to much. With Futures, Forex, and selling options subs have no way to guarantee the leader doesn’t end up using too much leverage.

Sure, but you can also have the same exact problem with stocks : the trade leader can also let the losses run wild and next thing you know you wake up with a 65% drawdown on some high-flying stock.

Usually if there is a stock only strategy that’s been around for over 2 years and has kept max drawdown below 35% the risk is quite low of blowing up.

With forex and option selling strategies even after a few years of doing ok they can still blow up at anytime. ( for example Just Forex)

The forex and futures traders who keep their leverage low and don’t add to losing positions will not have this blowing up risk. However it seems many of them often use massive leverage.


Leverage has nothing to do with risk. You can trade with 100 to 1 leverage and still risk 2% or less on each trade.

The risk is the stop, as a percentage of trading capital.

The only risk with leveraged financial instruments is the sudden and unexpected gap. But even that risk can be hedged through the purchase of options (put or call), instead of using a hard stop.

Leverage has something to do with risk.


Leverage is simply a loan.

How the trader manages that loan is another story.

Application and theory are often different. In this thread below, of the 13 strategies I have logged that failed in a big way all were either futures, forex, or selling options. Please help me even it out by pointing me in the direction of more stock, leveraged etf, and buying options strategies that have had spectacular failures after gaining popularity.

I am not saying you can’t have wildly successful strategies using those instruments but if you want to reduce the chances of massive blow ups when following strategies I would recommend not following those. That is just my two cents. Perhaps you yourself have a fantastic record publishing futures, forex, and selling option strategies.


You are still not answering this very simple question : where is the proof that stock strategies make more money on a risk-adjusted basis, in the long run, compared to leveraged financial instruments like the Futures, the Forex or the options.

In absence of a rigorous scientific study, we can only guess.

And saying that Forex strategies, for example, “fail” more often than stock strategies (due to poor money management) does NOT mean that stock strategies are better, safer and make more money overall.

There are also tons of investors who prefer to make 35% a year with a 35% maximum drawdown, than 5% a year with a "safe"5% maximum drawdown.

You wrote: “Perhaps you yourself have a fantastic record publishing futures, forex,”

I will start a Forex strategy next month, feel free to study it if you wish. This C2 trading system will show that leverage has absolutely nothing to do with risk, so stay tuned, as they say on TV…

I was actually looking for a link to your profile but can’t find it. I don’t know why but when I search your name as a member I can’t find you on the main C2 site. I just mean your public profile not your strategy since it sounds like you have not started publishing one yet.

Also I I’m asking you to help me make a small study by helping me find more things to add to the log

Well, I really do not like to bash people’s system, even if their strategy is no longer active.
Like my uncle used to say : “If you can’t say something nice about people, keep your mouth shut”.

But there are indeed some studies we could conduct. For instance, do systems with low drawdowns (less than 10% for instance) generate smooth equity curves? What is their average ROI?
Same question for C2 systems with low “leverage”.
Stuff like that.

Back to C2 Platform