Iâm not saying the whole track record is meaningless, but at some point in time someone who canât trade might just figure it out and become a very good trader and at that time his previous track record becomes irrelevant. At that time only the good system has meaning.
Somehow I just donât see the old con game you refer to on the same level as trading. With trading you have many races with different horses winning.
Well let me see, someone trading 4 systems opposite each other for eight systems might get lucky on one. But this is no different than anyone getting lucky for a while which is what most good looking systems are anyway. Stopping gamers while hurting legitimate traders is a poor trade off as gamers will be exposed with time just as all lucky systems are.
Have you thought about what a mess things might be 5 or 10 years from now with many good traders showing 100 or more failed systems which brought them to the status of good trader.
(I agree with Skip and really donât think many people pay attention to the score or other systems from a vender of a good system. If a system is good itâs good.)
One last thought. How many people see a low score donât know what it means and get scared off. Even if it is well explained somewhere, all who miss it might get scared off a good system.
Or intratrade risk?
‘Low’, 'Normal,‘High’ or ‘Very High’ or ‘Extreme’ should be imported by a weighting factor in the grid.
‘Very High’ or ‘Extreme’ should be serious penalty points.
Thanks for the suggestion Mr Optimum.
I suspected that length of service may be a factor and yes, I have not been here for long… yet! Given that it’s still early days for me I am not yet unduly worried about my score. I was just suggesting that, if the score is to have real meaning then some form of feedback and/or rough explanation would benefit vendors and investors alike.
I agree with Skip that as it stands at the moment the C2 score does not seem to be a useful indicator. However, I also suspect that Frankie may be correct in fearing that a low score can scare people off. It is easy to exclude all systems with a score less than, say, 900 in The Grid. Apart from Matthew sending out a questionnaire to all registered users, I don’t think there’s any way to tell…
… In fact, hey Matthew, how about a survey? I’m sure you could get some very useful information about how your users use C2 and some pattern may emerge to help you tune the C2 vendor score and Grid and other things.
I’d be careful with such single-trade stats. As an options trader I make regular use of spreads to control risk. This is common practice with options. That means I actually hope that some of my trades turn out to be 100% losers.
These trade pairs should be seen as one unit: as one loses the other gains and vice-versa. It is quite possible for the overall volatility to be quite low even as the individual legs jump all over the place. So my worry is that, in this example, both legs may show “Very High” intratrade risk when in reality the combined effect was in fact “Normal”.
Think of it as insurance: you hope that your “insurance trades” lose 100%. That is, you pay your premium but don’t have to claim. Your goal is never to have to claim on the insurance but every once in a while you may have to.
Therefore most of these hedging trades will eventually show a 100% loss and I don’t want to be penalised for being cautious!
Having said that, I realise that I don’t actually know what the “intratrade risk” measures. Could one have a “Normal” rating even with a 100% loss?
Those labels stand for certain intratrade drawdown interval zones.
I’ve figured out the intervals one day… forgot them by now. “Normal” goes from -1.5% to -2.5% or something in that area.
Now, I’m not into options but there should be a way of assessing intratrade risk for every instrument. It’s just too important… gives a very good idea about the risk appetite of the vendor.
Maybe the fact open positions cancel each other out might be taken into account?
receive some kind of feedback so they can improve their service.
Not seem so hard…
publish profitable systems with decent metrics. Stop killing off systems and expecting bad systems to not weight down your score…
I’m totally happy with that if it’s all there is to it 
the defining thing for a vendor is likely going to to be, where are you as compared to other vendors - are you profitable? what are your metrics (good, average, bad), do you have some dead systems, how long have you been active on C2…
The same that potential subs would look for…
