"There are plenty of tradeable strategies at C2 that can make the subscriber a handsome return for a relatively low risk, but I’d bet those are some of the lowest subscribed to systems on C2."
Well said Keith. All of these tradable systems are hidden in the middle of the masses. Attractive looking equity curves like Defiant, which are not tradable by anyone with less than a $1M account, are displayed high by the comparison tools here. Improve the comparison tools and other, better systems will rise to the top.
<chime>
Just agreeing that most investors in general do not understand risk vs reward. Why would ANYONE invest in high yielding market strategies (20%+ APR), unless they thoroughly considered how long said strategies would last?
I have not seen anywhere, opportunities to invest that much exceed this low end of range. But at C2 you get plenty of eye-popping annual returns that rarely last more than a few months!
So, unless you are good at “getting in” and “getting out” of temporal high-fliers - you are at best throwing your money away. Perhaps there is a gambling factor and subscribers are simply using expendable income with the hopes of getting rich quick.
Either way, it is a loosing (lol) proposition. Customers would be much well prepared if they first understood these ideas. But I agree, if one was serious, there are quite a few decent, lasting systems that range from say 30-60% in APR.
The higher they fly the harder/fast/quicker they fall. Hey. . .there is a strategy - just reverse trade high-fliers and within a few more months of crashing down ones account would balloon. I really have to question the site’s “quality” of traffic. After all Matthew Klein has adopted contra-system availability and where has that gone? You still see hopeful and expectant vendor after vendor with LONG strategies.
Regards,
Gilbert
[LINKSYSTEM_30873120]
"I would not agree with your/Ross point that C2’s subscribers are stupid lemmings that are following for equity curves."
Great, show where I said they are stupid lemmings… And since it is estimated that 95% of traders lose their money, then you may be overestimating their abilities.
"Regarding Ross post, the “wisdom” is cheap and useless as Ross “systems”. "
Instead of just letting the mice turn the wheels that seem to be powering your brain, why don’t you precisely pick WHICH of the points is my post was cheap and useless?
This is one of the most unsubstantiated posts you have ever made, Eu…
I guess the point of Ross was: why save $50 on subscription fee if you can blow up your account even faster with a $200 system?
Just kidding. I appreciated that post of Ross.
(sigh)
Ross,
Great, show where I said they are stupid lemmings… And since it is estimated that 95% of traders lose their money, then you may be overestimating their abilities.
there is 100% probability of a death. Why you don’t lecture about forced abortion and prohibition to have kids? I hope there are all adults and everybody knows how to live without your lectures about debt free life style. Lecturing obvious things shows more what you think about people whom you’re lecturing your “wisdom”.
Instead of just letting the mice turn the wheels that seem to be powering your brain, why don’t you precisely pick WHICH of the points is my post was cheap and useless?
See above.
Eu
funny. Everyone thought it was sound except you.
But at least you have your lemmings to power your brain wheel…
EU - Don’t get me wrong. I love C2. You are making my point for me. In reality, to trade many of these highly leveraged instruments you need $100K+ and expect fairly low returns. This is why CTAs are around for the long run.
How many times have you read - "I’m new at C2, I’ve only got $5K. What super futures (or FOREX) system do you recommend? You started with $100K - can I trade it with $5K? And if this newbie is told not to do so then he will anyways because it is safe - the equity curve is beautiful - how can he lose?
I’m not even sure intelligence is the determining criteria - look at the nobel prize winner that bankrupted a hedge fund in 1998. Look at the (no longer in existence) investment banks that lobbied the government for looser regulations and got what they asked for. They not only took themselves down but the entire financial system.
In reality, to trade many of these highly leveraged instruments you need $100K+ and expect fairly low returns. This is why CTAs are around for the long run.
Correct. Also I would add fairly low returns are based on relatively low taken risk and the risk is based on possibility of raising new trading capital in case of a CTA’s blow up. It’s why majority C2’s high-leverage systems outperform CTAs on short-run and it’s why CTAs outperform C2 in long term.
I’m new at C2, I’ve only got $5K
Ohh… Instead of forex/futures system I would recommend Las Vegas. There would be more fun and enjoyment for the money. For education it’s better to spend the money on poker. You would have very good training in emotional and self-control. Also you have better chances to become break-even/profitable player than in trading world.
how can he lose?
Well… Imagine hypothetical situation. A system that is scalable to 5K TC and makes 20-25% with relatively low risk. After one year of trading you’ll have ~1K of profit minus taxes. It’s lower than any low-wages job.
So we come back to gambling at C2 with high leverage or not necessary C2 it might be forex/futures markets directly.
I’m not even sure intelligence is the determining criteria
I didn’t define intelligence as necessary criteria to success. I think problem is “Holy grail”. Classical education requires you to understand underlying of your resolution of a problem. When trading is decision-making scenarios with incomplete information. It’s why we have similar to Ross guys who knows everything about trading, but they cannot trade, because they will never have complete information (“Holy Grail”) for making trading decision.
Eu
"It’s why we have similar to Ross guys who knows everything about trading, but they cannot trade"
As opposed to Eu, who cratered one system, nearly cratered another system and stopped, has another system that careened up and down and was killed, and another system currently in something like a 40% drawdown
If that is your definition of knowing how to trade, then you have much to learn…
Ross,
There are descriptions to every system. Simply said you’re falsifying my data.
I did some very interesting experiment for guys like you. I gave real life result as backtest for reviewing and asked an opinion about the system. There wasn’t very big surprise for me that the results were claimed as unstable, bad and the system was needed a lot of improvements by opinion of the always-know-how-to-trade guys as you. Main fun was that I gave Buffet data. After that I won’t give the theoreticians as you any credit.
Eu
I can testify that Little Sister was launched as an experiment and I was one of the persons who asked Eu to conduct this experiment. It was clear from the beginning that he was quite sceptical about the potential of this system, and that he did not accept regular subscribers.
With respect to Crawler, everybody who was here at that time - and this includes Ross - knows that Crawler was part of a competition and that no realistic trading system was intended.
you keep seeming to think I am a theoretician. I am quite able to trade rings around you, Eu.
Somehow, people think that unless people put up a system, and fail like the other 99.5% of vendors, that they are unable to trade.
None of the current systems I see here indicate that there are any great vendor-traders, frankly. And certainly none of yours even EXCLUDING your "experiments"
Light up the sky with an impressive system, and I might be slightly willing to challenge you. But from what I see now, I don’t consider you as any kind of an authority, and feel zero need to try to impress you.
In fact, I see people who demand that someone else trade a “profitable” system to prove their knowledge as somewhat pathetic. I am on C2 for my own purposes. I have no interest in proving anything to anyone and I don’t need the money. I am a full-time trader from home, and do not need to work for others. I could care less if it bothers someone else.
Eu, I can understand the other systems being inconsequential, but I do think little sister was a serious attempt. The problem is it appears to be an abject failure as a system.
"In fact, I see people who demand that someone else trade a “profitable” system to prove their knowledge as somewhat pathetic."
Excuse me, but earlier didn’t you just question his knowledge on the basis of his systems’ performance?
“As opposed to Eu, who cratered one system, nearly cratered another system and stopped, has another system that careened up and down and was killed, and another system currently in something like a 40% drawdown…If that is your definition of knowing how to trade, then you have much to learn…”
Without proof, this sounds like Gilbert:
"I am quite able to trade rings around you, Eu."
Beau,
but I do think little sister was a serious attempt. The problem is it appears to be an abject failure as a system.
It was serious attempt. I consider it as failure. My skepticism about the system was based on Black Swan theory or in other words there wasn’t enough space for maneuvers if something went wrong. So when by logic of the system I must decrease a trade size I had a situation when profitable trades barely cover commissions ($1 - one way) it’s untradable when you pay 60-70% commissions from profitable trade.
Back test was perfect 
Light up the sky with an impressive system, and I might be slightly willing to challenge you.
Well… Mr. Always-know-how-to-trade, how about small challenge? we’ll open by one system at C2 and compare the systems after one year. Of course on real accounts. So that we can check our broker’s statements. Otherwise I believe no one your word.
Julies,
Without proof, this sounds like Gilbert:
"I am quite able to trade rings around you, Eu."
I read interesting study about psychology of failed traders. One of conclusions of the study was that failed trader has a permanent fear for a trading, but some category of the traders is still addicted to the market and they have to self-protect their psychic by participating in around-market activity.
Eu
"Excuse me, but earlier didn't you just question his knowledge on the basis of his systems' performance? "
No, you chopped off the message I responded to:
""EU: It's why we have similar to Ross guys who knows everything about trading, but they cannot trade" "
"ROSS: As opposed to Eu, who cratered one system, nearly cratered another system and stopped, has another system that careened up and down and was killed, and another system currently in something like a 40% drawdown...If that is your definition of knowing how to trade, then you have much to learn..."
I questioned someone with flubbing systems calling someone else a "theoretician".
The response you extracted this from, stated my position clearly.
"Light up the sky with an impressive system, and I might be slightly willing to challenge you."
Well... Mr. Always-know-how-to-trade, how about small challenge? we'll open by one system at C2 and compare the systems after one year. Of course on real accounts. So that we can check our broker's statements. Otherwise I believe no one your word.
I have no interest in whether you believe my word. Apparently you are incapable of reading. Light up the sky with an impressive system, and I might be slightly willing to challenge you.
Julies,
Without proof, this sounds like Gilbert:
"I am quite able to trade rings around you, Eu."
I read interesting study about psychology of failed traders. One of conclusions of the study was that failed trader has a permanent fear for a trading, but some category of the traders is still addicted to the market and they have to self-protect their psychic by participating in around-market activity.
Eu
Spend less time reading interesting studies and more time learning how to trade.
I have no interest in whether you believe my word. Apparently you are incapable of reading. Light up the sky with an impressive system, and I might be slightly willing to challenge you.
So Mr. Always-know-how-to-trade-in-theory as I assumed you’re incapable for trading and have only empty words.
Spend less time reading interesting studies and more time learning how to trade.
Ohh… you know the kind of guys as well? Maybe when you look into mirror? Mr. Always-know-how-to-trade-in-theory.
Okay. I think it’s clear with you. Teach others at C2 your theoretical “wisdom” of trading.
Eu
