Sarf 2 have just closed a trade of 900 mini lots.
That’s $ 90,000 of margin which is about 40% of their account equity.
They also appear to have an open trade using more margin than they have notional equity!
This seems to defeat the object of C2. - being able to compare trading systems on a like for like basis.
No subscriber using sensible money management is going to be able to match these results, so what’s the point?
I strive with my system, not just to make profitable trades, but also to trade at a size that enables my subscribers to replicate the results.
Maybe C2 should put a maximum trade size relative to notional account equity to stop these unrealistic trades?
Two separate issues here.
First: C2 does issue simulated Margin Calls to accounts that are overmargined. There was a problem with the Margin Calls (they stopped being issued over the past several days) but that is now fixed and all overmargined accounts will receive Margin Calls and – if they do not liquidate positions - will have positions liquidated at the market automatically.
Regarding your other point: that you think it is “unrealistic” that people would place a trade comprising 40% of their equity – it is unfortunately not “unrealstic.” It is all too realistic (sadly) that some people trade like this. A better choice of words might be “reckless” or “stupid” or “irresponsible.” But not "unrealistic."
It is not C2’s job to impose sanity on traders. It is C2’s job to highlight their trading records so that potential subscribers can make judgements for themselves. I personally would never subscribe to a system that is reckless like this.
Perhaps you offer the germ of a good idea, Mark. Perhaps I can add a special “qualification” next to systems that are reckless with margin (a red skull and crossbones?) and another mark next to responsible systems (a green star). This will allow traders to find systems that don’t overleverage when they trade.
So: I’ll take any suggestions from the public about what mathematical algorithm to use to determine what makes a system reckless. Perhaps any system that ever placed more than 20% of its available capital on a single trade? Any other ideas?
How much capital is allocated to any single trade is not really the determining factor whether a trader is reckless or not - it depends what their timeframe is and where their stop is.
Trading 20 ES futures contracts is not reckless if it is an intra-day trade with a 2 point stop (it is risking $2000 or 2% of initial capital), but it would be with a long-term trade with a 40 point stop (that would be risking 40%).
I think the ‘recklessness algorithm’ needs to take average trade length and and any stops into account. - maybe using average winner and loser size relative to account equity would be a better measure of how much risk is being taken rather than the absolute value of the trade.
Paul King
PMKing Trading LLC
www.pmkingtrading.com
Lol Matthew, and while you’re at why don’t you just become a school teacher and let kids stand in a corner when they start misbehaving. Look, you have plenty of metrics that any 6 grader could figure out what is real and what is not. Over using margin is certainly not allowed and that is a progamming flaw on your behalf, not the vendor. But to tell us how much capital to use or say it’s stupid is non of any one’s concern. If it’s available, I WILL use it. My system had a 94% drawdown (according to your metrics). That means it had to earn 1566% just to break even and that’s without using marging, just simple option purchases. Your job is not to restrict any one’s trading style and the way he/she chose to trade but to provide the proper tools for the task at hand …and that is trading pure and simple. .
"Your job is not to restrict any one’s trading style and the way he/she chose to trade but to provide the proper tools for the task at hand"
I disagree - that would be his job if the purpose of this site was only to provide a place for system vendors to develop an audit trail. Since presumably he is interested in gaining subscribers who actually want to trade C2 systems (and pay to do so), anything he can do to separate systems that are actually useful to potential subscribers versus the unrealistic systems should be encouraged and not scoffed at.
As stated, people can clearly see what is real and what is not. Last I checked, we live in the 21 century. People are a whole lot smarter and can on their own distinguish fluff from stuff.
Some interesting comments Matthew.
Getting the margin call working again will be a start.
I think you may alredy have the tool to flag up ‘reckless trading’ - The realism factor.
The system I mentioned has a realism factor of 100%.- depending on your definition of ‘realistic’, I would drop them to about 10%
Matthew,
>A better choice of words might be “reckless” or “stupid” or >“irresponsible.” But not "unrealistic."
It’s too harsh words. We assume that every system vendor is “sane” until insanity wasn’t proved. 
There might be systems that have a base under its risk. I can give you an example when 100% of capital (with some luck) might be involved in one position with minimal risk. Of course black swan will wipe out the position, but it’s tradeable.
>Any other ideas?
(I feel that I start digging a grave for myself from the point)
Why to reinvent a wheel? Classical Risk:Reward. The stats is totally missed on C2. Instead of Stop Loss/Profit target you can use for calculation max DD per trade/profit per trade. It’ll show good additional info on averages. Right now R:R is practically invisible on C2. As example I’ll use my system. At the moment it has Avg Win:$221 Avg Loss:$398. R:R is 2:1 the system risks $2 dollars for taking $1. If we’ll count max DD per trade the Avg R:R will be changed to ~ 5:1 and I’d like that subscribers can see it. It’s one part of stats that is missed on C2 from my opinion.
Eu
You are correct. Harsh is understating it. It’s very insulting. He could have stated it more eloquently than that. But I’m not the novelist here.
Btw for those of you aspiring new traders or the ones who think that this business is a walk in the park, trading, when approached with a solid well thought out business plan is very rewarding but very hard, very demanding work specially when youre trying to solve the two most difficult variable namely volatility and direction in the equation and start using predictive models to achieve the results that I have. Mind-boggling doesn’t even begin to describe it. If it werent for the intense passion that I have for this business I would have folded long time ago. But I knew deep within my soul that what I have was worth pursuing and now my perseverance and immense knowledge I added through out the last few years is paying off handsomely…with or without subscribers makes no difference.
If you believe that the great traders of our times (Paul Tudor Jones, George Soros, John Henry, and many others interviewed in the market wizard books) where held to strict standards to achieve the phenomenal results they did, youre in for a big surprise. I would love to look at their equity graph and their risk metrics. I bet they are worse than the worst system on C2. But somehow they managed to make it BIG. Why is that???
Honestly, I have huge admiration and respect for successful traders who can or have taken their equity down into a nose dive, pulled out of it and then managed to make new highs, because those are the ones who truly understand trading, its nuances, and have an intimate relationship with their true edge on a much deeper level. Very few people are capable of doing it though, yet Im proud that I walked that path. Truly I am. Now I can say I have seen the good, the bad, and most definitely the ugly. So what do you think the odds of Pinnacle blowing up in the future if I continue trading the way I do??? Please lets keep away from insults if you want to respond. Thanks.
I tried to reverse my position, but just kept getting a message it won’t work at this time and to hit the “back” button. I gave up after awhile as I usually do when something doesn’t work at C2, but later I see a few of the reverses eventually worked. So it has been a mess all day overall.
Personally I couldn’t care less what amount of leverage a forex system used, I add up the pips made and that is all I look at. I don’t bother with any of the other stats, other than drawback.
Maybe Mathew could make two divisions for forex systems. One where only one standard lot per pair could be used, so leverage is not an issue. Only the pip count is. Another division for multiple lot traders/ scaling positions etc…
Hal
Looking at your track record, you have more problems than just today.
Here is a copy of a post you made on 9/04/05 (20:06)
-----------------------Start----------
"A well thought out system should have the entry and exit point fixed before the trade is entered. "
Maybe that’s why I make money while most lose. You spend too much time thinking while I am doing. Do you actually trade Pal, or just type in forums? LOL. (that was retorical, no answer needed). Any system that tries to manage per trade is silly, unless every trade is from a different system.
Putting an entry and exit in before the trade is entered is PREDICITIVE. I’ve yet to see anyone replicate my success doing that. (including psychics). I’ll stick with watching the markets and putting in a stop or limit when the markets tell me to.
Ahhh…all the experts and their rules… If you tried to follow all the experts rules, you would do nothing but check rules. There would be no time for trading. Off to change my GBP entry now, as the market tells me I should. (I guess I should have predicted that entry change, but how would I know the market was going to drop 24 pips the last hour…hmmmm…)
---------end----------------------------------------
I would say your problem is not C2, but a case of arrogance. Or maybe the market stop telling you where to put your stops? You were very arrogant when your system made money… The higher to tree, the harder the fall. This is clear now that you have absolute no system and is trading on pure luck and is trying to blame your failure on C2. You never had any complaints about C2 when your “system” was doing well.
Your system has a 90% drawdown. At point to you start caring about statistics? When you are wiped out?
Chris
I would say most of the problem definately was c2, since the graph here at c2 looks nothing like my actual trades.
I complained constantly while things were going well, just ask Mathew, who was constantly fixing problems. But fixing problems for the vendor is great, but doesn’t help the subscriber, so I just let it go last time C2 was down for hours and I couldn’t reverse.
Every time there are new improvements and things are “better” here with the c2 software, I give it another try. So far only to be frustated each day.
I tried again a few weeks ago. Three days trading, three days problems. (didn’t reverse me when I had enough leverage, etc…)
I’m sure Mathew can verify I placed my reverse multiple times yesterday/today, though not sure why I would do that if there wasn’t something wrong.
Not sure what arrogance has to do with it. But I’ll keep trading my system and keep making money. My system and the graph at c2 are two very different things.
But for now I will keep posting my unrealisic forex trades.
“my perseverance and immense knowledge I added through out the last few years is paying off handsomely”
"I have huge admiration and respect for successful traders who can or have taken their equity down into a nose dive, pulled out of it and then managed to make new highs, because those are the ones who truly understand trading, its nuances, and have an intimate relationship with their true edge on a much deeper level"
All you have shown is that you have poor risk management skills. Its easy to suffer through a 90+% drawdown when its just paper trading, after all if you blow out your C2 account (which you basically did) then who cares, its not your money.
It’s very apparent Pete(star) you lack critical trading knowledge (and skills) otherwise you would show us and the rest of the world how trading is truly done. right?? Btw, what is the name of your system?? And your rating please. Do you have any? lol.
And what’s with the next to your name. Really weird.
"It’s very apparent Pete(star) you lack critical trading knowledge (and skills) otherwise you would show us and the rest of the world how trading is truly done. right??"
If you are claiming that the only people who can judge the merits (or lack thereof) of your system are people with an equal or better system then I reject the basis of your statement. However it doesn’t surprise me that you would attempt to turn this into a personal discussion about me rather than have an honest discussion about the shortcomings of your system and risk management abilities.
Look, your jealousy is well taken. After all we’re all humans and humans have feelings and emotions. right? But honestly guy, it’s very very difficult to have an intellectual conversation with someone who lacks the necessary knowledge about this business. Because let us be honest here, why do we get up every morning, look at charts, do intensive research, and place trades almost every day?? (It has nothing to do with C2, but trading life in general.
Again your post contains assumptions that are baseless and incorrect.
Just as I don’t have to be a pro NFL player to see a bad pass and label it as such, I don’t have to be a system provider to say that a system with a 94% drawdown and 24% realism factor is far from ideal. Bragging about how enlightened you are because you suffered such a drawdown certainly isnt warranted.
If you took the time to read my candid posts instead of attacking, you would realize that I’m talking about great traders in general and that I was fortunate enough to have similar experiences. And if I were to do it again, I now have the necessary knowledge to succeed at it. That my friend is priceless experience, no one can take that away from you. But don’t take my word for it, read the books about the great ones. Do you think they all had instant success right from the get- go??
