Nick Wilson has created 7 systems of which 2 have failed and 3 show very impressive equity curves but are closed and he is unwilling to disclose anything about them. Those 3 systems are all futures systems, have very similar equity curves and might have all traded substantially the same contracts. For all we know he might have never had any subscribers, gambled with high risk trades, lucked out and now wants to lure new subscribers.
He says the vendor of Master Demo is a close associate.
Babson closed his system without giving any reason and I heard from reliable sources that Babson trades exactely the same contracts now as Master Demo.
It seems like the vendor of all 3 systems is the same and tries to create randomly good looking equity curves and then tries to lure unsuspecting new subscribers.
Matthew, can you please look into this and stop this deceptive behavior.
With this post I am not insinuating anything… just adding that I was told that Futures Trader Daily was a comparable system (by Nick’s systems) to examine. I will say that I then communicated with that admin. and he took the time to write a long note to me detailing some of the questions I asked. He has historicals posted to review. I don’t know how, if at all, they are all intertwined. I think anyone would look at Nick’s returns and wonder if they are too good to be true. They certainly make you want to know more, since if they are true some people have hit the jackpot.
I too was sent to Futures Trader Daily and Magic Trade when I asked for details. Examining those systems was very helpful. They are good examples of systems. They are very different but never the less interesting.
I do not know why you were sent to my system (Futures Trader Daily), I have no affiliation with “Nick” (or Magic Trade). Unless Nick has hacked into my PC I see no way he could know if my system was similar to his.
At the least this is very irresponsible for Nick to reference a system as “similar” without having any underlying knowledge of the system. At worst it’s a scam.
David, to be fair to all parties. The question was about the style of trading. I wanted to examine some data of a specific style. He was very kind and suggested that with C2 one could see the prior trades.
I was able to download a csv file of all of your trades. As a result I may become a subscriber.
Or it could be that "NicK’, Ron, Alden, Primary - whatever the alias is had subscribed to your system and repackaged your signals …
I see what you’re saying but he’d need to know which of the trades would turn out to be a winner and which wouldn’t … and if he could tell that he wouldn’t need to be on C2 at all – he’d be off buying islands like Hawaii 
That certainly changes it a bit, that’s not the tone I got from Mark’s earlier post. So there’s certainly a possibility some/all of us are misunderstanding what Nick was telling people.
My post was to clarify for all parties that I am not related in any way (good, bad, or ugly) to him or his systems (or any other systems for that matter).
Dave
Dave,
Use of MATLAB, with this has given me some positive insights into the various systems. Yours is one that looks most attractive.
There needs to be more transparency in situations like this.
It makes no sense whatsoever, to post systems like Nick’s–or ANY other system that is not accepting subscribers–on the winners or losers list so they can get lost of “hits.” If the developer isn’t offering the systems to the public, then why show them at all. Put them in a section entitled, “Systems not accepting subscribers,” not on the head marquee. Who cares about systems that aren’t available to the public?
To make matters worse, all the statistics are locked and the only thing the public sees is an equity curve. Does that have an iota of value to anyone? I think not, but perhaps the marketing department at C2 feels otherwise.
I agree completely with this post. My question is. Why don’t subscribers to Nick’s systems comment on this forum if it’s so great.
Babson forum erased? How did this happen?
One way to get the historical data about a perticular system is to use the API.
First login:
http://data.collective2.com/cgi-perl/xml.mpl?cmd=getsessionid&userlogin=youremail@yourdomain&pw=youpassword
THEN GET the data
http://data.collective2.com/cgi-perl/xml.mpl?cmd=getsignalhistory&numdays=
http://data.collective2.com/cgi-perl/xml.mpl?cmd=getsignalhistory&systemid=
http://data.collective2.com/cgi-perl/xml.mpl?cmd=getsystemstats&systemid=
Interestingly enough, a lot of the trade under Nick system are reported with decimal size position
55381236 -1737 future 12/1/2010 9:40 STO 6.43200016 @CDZ0 0.979 12/1/2010 9:41 BTC 6.43200016 0.9817
55381964 14795 future 12/1/2010 9:49 STO 8.041000366 @ADZ0 0.9812 12/1/2010 10:06 BTC 8.041000366 0.9628
55383592 -4684 forex 12/1/2010 10:14 STO 87.71499634 AUDJPY 81.065 12/1/2010 13:16 BTC 87.71499634 81.515
55408057 -1649 future 12/1/2010 23:10 STO 3.509000063 @ADZ0 0.9628 12/2/2010 1:58 BTC 3.509000063 0.9675
55408066 -137 future 12/1/2010 23:10 BTO 3.654999971 @JYZ0 0.0119 12/2/2010 1:58 STC 3.654999971 0.0119
Column 6 is the quantity.
When was the last time you where able to buy 8.041 of an australian dollar contract?
I really think that mattew need to answer those question. And yes I agree that system that are not open to public should not be display. As it even look that it’s C2 creating them to lure us in buying other system on his site.
Otherwise make sure that it is really easy to get into contact with the seller and to get answer to our question. Have them post their web site or any other info that would justify them.
Denis:
The reason you see non-integers is because the system was "rescaled" downward in the past by the system vendor. Systems that have too much equity are allowed to rescale their equity by a percentage. Historical trade data gets rescaled, too. This is just like a reverse stock split. Since stats are based on percentage gains or loss, changes in nominal equity do not matter.
The feature is provided as a convenience to system develoers who would rather work with $10,000 dollars in equity, say, instead of $100,000.
Matthew
