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.
Nice shameless plug in the forums for your strategy. So why donāt you use the same filters you used but instead of 90 days use 84. Besides its more important to see āmore tradesā than day the strategy has been in existence. The strategy could be 200 days but only 15 trades which does not tell much about a system.
Look at the grid now above with your same files but using 84 days vs 90. I love the fact you promote your system i just find it funny you conveniently tweak the numbers so certain strategies that you donāt want to show disappear. You did it before with the c2 score. People know how to use the grid and will search for things that are important to them.
Full Disclosure - We manage the āThis is the ESā strategy.
TSH,
thatās really hard to say it is really up to the comfort level of the investor. the more the better of course but you dont need hundreds but certainly i would say more than 50-75 at a minimum. the important thing to know is when the strategy owner clicks the button to put your money at risk is he/she consistant, having tons of huge losses, etc. There is no magic number. Even if there is 500 trades it does not mean that system canāt perform good and on the 501st blow up if they dont know what they are doing.
We were only trying to increase awareness about our strategy. And if you want a lower day count, then hereās the snapshot of the grid with #of days set to 60 for your interest - you only had to ask for it without judging us.
In reply to:
I love the fact you promote your system i just find it funny you conveniently tweak the numbers so certain strategies that you donāt want to show disappear. You did it before with the c2 score.
We can only say that (a) if you believe there is no merit in C2 Score, you can take that up with C2. But if it is available, then as a strategy provider we can only assume that there are C2 users who consider it useful - you will note that C2 keeps dropping redundant features from time to time (b) We have absolutely nothing to hide, and like you pointed out yourself, everyone here (users and strategy providers) knows how to use the grid.
We are a professional organization and have been in this business long enough. You will infact also find our listing in other places such as EurekaHedge. And in the business of fund management, the serious ones (including Warren Buffett) take timeout to send out a periodical note/meet their investors/appear in news media/post a tweet to clients as well as prospective subscribers. This post was made in that same context.
hey ā i never said your strategy was not decent. in fact in another post i said just that. but lets not get around the fact that you can say what you want about the c2 score but they donāt even put it in their own grid by default. Donāt you think thatās a bit odd? And for good reason. Yes you felt the need to add it. Its only because it made yours look better at the expense of other systems. Compare everything apples for apples and let the people decide. I never said you were not a professional organization but when you tout people looking at certain numbers (which I do believe are in fact important such as sharpe, calmar, max dd, sortino, etc and then filter out strategies based on some c2 score that no one even knows how it is calculated or what it means just to make yours look better its just a bit much, maybe others dont agree, maybe they do. Its not for me to decide. Also, other funds (like Warren buffet per your example) do send out updates āto their subscribersā not to a general forum. you will never see a fund like buffets taking out an add in the paper saying hey here is our fund - look we are better than others and filtering out key results to make others not appear. I suggest you just top with the posts here and let the thread die because in my opinion you are just clearly making yourself out to look not as professional as you may be. There are many investors on here that if they have the funds for multiple strategies should spread it around and clearly yours seems solid so if someone was following 4 strategies and they wanted yours to be one thats fine but also let them see others that they can choose from if you want to be fair. Thatās my only point.
With all due respect, we would like to point out that strategy providers have discussed their performance in this forum several times in the past. These posts act as a good place to have an open discussion around a specific strategy - and users who are not asking questions can benefit from answers to questions posted by others. This increases awareness and overall learning in the community. For example Mike had a question on a previous post of ours and we answered it here: Introducing: TickPrime SP500
Speaking about open vs closed/curated mediums - well, we probably like to do things differently at ACA. We have been running a free algo trading site called http://tickpool.com for the last 4 years and believe that discussing our performance in the open has only helped strengthen our business by constantly challenging/questioning us. In fact, coming to C2 was also one such decision.
Finally, we acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion. Your point about snapshots of the grid that we have posted is duly noted, but there are other users who find it useful. And if you feel differently about the choice of grid filters, you can choose your own and post it in this thread or create another - we will not debate that. Like we mentioned in a previous post, we do not want to hide anything, on the contrary we are open to have a discussion around it.
We are having a discussion about your strategy and i just pointed out a few things on the grid people might want to consider, as like you say that is what the forums are for. No worries. And yes, i would hope people would find it useful which is why I am pointing out things vs what you said so people can consider things. You are correct, others have posted here before and there is no issue with that.
Thank you for your enquiry. The following points elaborate on what we mean by Institution grade.
Process :
Following a rigid process helps us to be consistent.
A discretionary trade is never made.
Risk management processes are tested for various eventualities in Walk Forward scenarios.
Given the sizable investment in the business - focus is on long term value generation.
Knowledge :
Our in-house experience includes deep knowledge of economics, statistics, algorithms, technical analysis, cloud computing and load balancing.
Quality :
A strategy is made live only after testing on 5-10 years of (good quality L2) data; And, after first running it on our own test accounts with real money.
We do not cut corners by testing on free or less historic data. The difference in backtest-vs-real life performance can be huge if tested on poor quality data.
Values :
Integrity, Honesty and Transparency.
When we define a mandate, we stick to it.
You will never find us trying to Martingale or trade an extra lot in order to convert losing trades into profitable ones.
You will never find us trying to hide from measurement parameters.
Diversification :
We acknowledge that there is no silver bullet.
Instead of making a strategy that looks pretty on the equity curve but exposes itself to black swan events; We build strategies that go well with other strategies.
This comparison is like comparing street food to gourmet food. Both have their merits, but with gourmet food you can expect a refined and consistent result.
