Seleukos Currency Intraday System?? You must be kidding me.
Beside that it started out with a DD, (OK, I forgive that) according to the chart between May and now it didn’t go nowhere!!! So if I had played for 3-4 months since May, I would have lost subscription and commission on it. And even that little up wasn’t that impressive in the last 2 months…
Sam, if you don’t say what systems, I can’t check them out, but I bet they don’t live up to my expectations. And I don’t think my expectations were that high. Also I expect that C2 is aimed at the small money trader/investor.
The problem with good stocktrading systems, that they require relative big capital, I would say at least 50K, to make it work.
I personally trade/searching for future trading systems, and I want at least 10 YM/1 ES a day per contract. Both ATDow and Starfinder just doing about that, so there is no advantage for me to subscribe to them…
Be happy. The situation is very difficult for every one. When markets are going to nowhere (till October?) there is always one winner and only one: the broker. Obviously, this is my opinion.
"Seleukos Currency Intraday System?? You must be kidding me.
Beside that it started out with a DD, (OK, I forgive that) according to the chart between May and now it didn’t go nowhere!!! So if I had played for 3-4 months since May, I would have lost subscription and commission on it. And even that little up wasn’t that impressive in the last 2 months…"
That’s why I said he sounded like Paris Hilton praising her own debut album. Apperantly he didn’t understand. I guess they don’t hear much of Paris Hilton in Greece, despite the fact that she has been dating (and dumping) quite a few Greek shipping magnets…
> Sam, if you don’t say what systems, I can’t check them out, but I bet they don’t live up to my expectations. And I don’t think my expectations were that high.
Whatever…with no effort on your part I doubt you’ll find anything of value.
I told you where and how to find several systems in less than a minute.
Indeed, it would seem you didn’t even read your own system’s description before you started trading it:
> An automatic 20 points stop loss is applied to each trade.
BTO 50 @YMU6 @ MKT DAY 6/13/06 9:55 6/13/06 9:55 10936
STC 50 @YMU6 @ MKT DAY 6/14/06 0:01 6/14/06 0:01 10805
Sam, as I said, I browse the systems from time to time, I have found none that stands up to my expectations. It is not because I am lazy. It is because there isn’t any…
And you are right, I am not proud of my system’s performance, so we can add one more characteristics to the good system:
- system has to stick to description.
By the way I challenge you to show me 1 (repeat one) system that fullfills all of the criterias posted above.
Kathryne’s system looks good so far, but it is only 2 weeks old.
Pedro, I didn’t exactly say that these are ‘good’ systems, I said that they are profitable and that it further depends on your patience or stomach whether you call them ‘good’.
Tango is a good system, but I agree, you need a minimum capital of $25K (at least that’s what I understood from Eu). But that wasn’t on your list of requirements and it doesn’t make it a bad system. If you have a small capital, say < $10K, try Penny Stocks Picks Guaranteed (which is the same as Penny Stock Movers, but uses a different business model). I am subscribed to that system, and the few trades that I made were close to the C2 results - the low Realism Factor apparantly doesn’t apply to small capital. But there aren’t many trades in that system, so you have to be patient.
I am subscribed to Extreme-os too, and it turned my $13,870 into $16,358 in a few months, without using margin. You can’t call that a large capital. So I think that it is a good system. Frankly, I think that those negative reviewers weren’t patient enough. OK, it doesn’t use stop loss rules, but neither will it keep a losing position forever.
I also trade Pinnacle, and this has also brought me profits, and my fills are close to C2 - again despite the low Realism Factor. Yes, I had a draw down there first, but what’s so bad about draw downs? It’s only a problem if it doesn’t recover.
I think that Sliced Bread is also good, but you need at least $30K and it was flat for a while - but hey, that happens.
So what I say is that your demands on a ‘good’ system are too high. You can’t have a system that has excellent reward with virtually no draw downs and a low fee, and you can’t have a system with a high Realism Factor (which means that it can be traded with $100K+) that is also tradable with only $5K.
Suffice to say try "Show all" and then rank by Sharpe. Scan the equity curves.
You can see them faster than I can type their names!
> It is not because I am lazy.
Then what is it?
OK, Sam I am doing it right now. The first system on the list has a Sharpe of 505 (!!!) and a return of -.8%…
I guess I should lower my expectations… 
Will get back to you when I am done…
Can’t help but to chip in. This discussion is getting very lively. OK so here’s my wish list for a good system:
1. Decent return over drawdown or what we usually call risk/reward ratio. This criteria must rank number 1 on my list and it’s apparently lacking on C2’s performance ranking table. Jules mentioned Hawkfx as a good system and we can also see it at the top of the FX ranking table, as well as the most looked-at list all the time, simply because it posts the highest overall return and has been around the longest, but does anyone notice that it records a record 67% drawdown. Yes the drawdown was recovered, but I doubt any of his subscribers was around to enjoy the rebound. Remember, drawdown is unavoidable in any system, but the smaller it is, the better. It takes only 11% gain to recover a 10% drawdown, but 200% to make up for 67%. Do you hear that? 200%. Not to mention that when you are down to 1/3 of your account, you won’t have the necessary margin to continue trading at the same trade size anymore. In the case of Hawk, I understand that he didn’t take the losses, but instead waited for them to come back. What if they hadn’t come back?
I won’t consider any system with a reward to risk ratio of at least 1. Think about it, why should you risk more than 10 dollars to make 10? On a trade to trade basis, it may be alright to occasionally risk more than you earn, but not on a portfolio basis.
2. Profitable over at least 3 months and has a tendency to show consistency. I think this is self-explanatory.
3. Clear trading rules that are posted upfront, as someone mentioned, is very important. This way, the subscribers know what to expect from a system and can assess for themselves whether the trading style fits their personality, as well as time availability. Also, it’s reassuring to know that you are dealing with an advisor who knows his system inside out, and not someone who pulls his trades from black boxes, or worse, re-selling other people’s signals (Yes, I come across cases like that before). More importantly, subscribers will be alerted immediately if the advisor is deviating from his rules. Flexibility is allowed, even required, in trading, but the backbone of the system should be there.
4. Regular communication from the advisor is very important. It shows that he cares about his clients and his trades. It also adds a personal touch. Especially, in difficult time such as when the system is going through a drawdown, or in a flat market, some words from the advisor work wonders to calm the nerves of the subscribers.
That’s all I look for in a good system. Other requirements such as trading with stops or with low leverage are not necessary to me. Averaging down has been around since Ark and there’s nothing wrong with it. As long as a system doesn’t run its losses forever it’s fine by me. As for the high level of leverage that a lot of systems use to boost their equity, the subscribers can always set their own without having to follow the advisor’s guideline. And trust me, clients aren’t stupid, they all know how to count pips or points.
Since you don’t read your own words I don’t expect you to read mine:
"A) C2’s rankings do not reward good risk/reward ratios. C2’s “Sharpe Ratio” is broken (Trend ADP ER2 has a Sharpe of 505.771 and a return of 1.4%…how can that be?). As many have stated before it would be nice to have some simple risk/reward ranking criteria. If C2 rewarded low drawdowns vendors might play that game. Right now the best way to get noticed on C2 is to go for broke…and then go broke?"
Try this next time: Ctr-F type “sharpe”, click find.
"Paris Hilton is very good hotel, indeed"
Yes, considering the number of sleep-overs she has.
Hey Sam, relax, I am doing this for all of us. I would be happy to stand corrected, that would mean that there is a system I could happily subscribe to.
OK, so I went through the first 80 systems ranked by the Sharpe ratio. About 80% of the systems sucked there, that just shows that Sharpe by itself isn’t a good search criteria. But I did find some good ones, although for one reason or other, they are not good for my personal taste. Nevertheless about 3 systems fullfilled my expectations posted above. So you could say I stand corrected.
Happy?
I also found about 5-8 other good ones, although they had a little consistency problems, where the equity chart went flat for a longer period of time.
So the 3 winners were:
- Oilfutures ( it is for the longer term)
- 2 Gold Survivor systems (although the annualized gain was only around 40%)
But these 3 systems fullfilled all of my criterias as I posted above.
Honorable mentions:
-Big Cat (too many trading vehicles for my taste)
-Energy Tradewind: (only 8 trades so far)
-Weekend trader (only 45% annualized)
-Smarttrade.it (little flat)
-Why not (currently flat)
-Short term stock index
-Timac (flat)
-Cheetah (flat)
Although I didn’t mention the number before but if DD was bigger than 20%, than that was a no-no.
Now hopefully those currently flat systems will continue up in the future. Still, I can’t say I got incredibly excited about any of these systems…
Sam
I am curious. Why are you even wasting your time with C2? You obviously do not think it has merit and it is better to go with a CTA. Why don’t you just invest your money with a CTA and stop wasting your time with C2? I am sure you have better things to do than constantly complain about something which has no value for you? Or at least I hope you do as it would be really sad if you don’t.
I never can understand why someone do something and then complain about it constantly and say there is something better, but yet they stay with it and never do the " something better" thing.
Regards
- Fanus
You ask:
“I am curious. Why are you even wasting your time with C2? You obviously do not think it has merit…”
>> In response to post by Pedro Pannon of 8/22/06 (11:59)
What is a good system? It is easy:
- no strong stomach approach
- no averaging down, or just once
- no big DDs …
I said:
>I found three [good systems] in about a minute using Show all and Sharpe. One traded Crude, one FX, one stock indices…although I didn’t see evidence of stop loses, they all did seem to cut their loses short.
I’m defending C2 here, is that not clear? Pedro said he couldn’t find any good systems. I “helped” him find several. The fact that I mention serious errors in the Sharpe ratio and the C2 “ratings” (such as your 987) hopefully is taken as constructive critism. Of course, many people have an axe to grind. So be it. I mention the CTA’s for two reasons: 1) as a point of comparison on track records as I think they are more apples to apples to C2 than mutual funds and 2) risk and drawdowns are scrutinized more carefully and fully (I think it would be wise for C2 to take a more “real money” approach like CTA’a (trading real money) must do).
"Although I didn’t mention the number before but if DD was bigger than 20%, than that was a no-no."
So 19.5% is OK and 20.5% isn’t? You don’t compare DD to reward
in any way correct?
This is why PF’s would be nice. Say a system is returning 100% vs
20.5% DD, while another returns 50% vs 19.5% DD. By your criteria
you’d eliminate the 1st and consider the 2nd, right?
FWIW, your “scan” missed at least two of the best systems based
more or less on your own criteria (I allowed 20.5% DD ;-))…and they were easy to spot. I understand it’s important that you didn’t find anything you could get “incredibly excited about” as that would mean … Kind of like having a stop hit on a trade, easy to talk about harder to do in real life.
> shows that Sharpe by itself isn’t a good search criteria…
I agree C2 could do better, but I’ve said this before, and I’ve offered
suggestions (rather than just bitch, bitch, bitch like some people) so
I will not nag. As it stands the Sharpe is the only risk/reward criteria we can search with on C2. What do YOU suggest?
BTW, there are NO C2 track records for "years".
Much better and better documented than anything more than
anything on C2.
1%-3% management fees. 20-30% of net profits. Percentage wise
C2 tends to be more expensive and you pay win lose or draw more
often than not on C2.
C2's rankings do not reward good risk/reward ratios. C2's "Sharpe Ratio" is broken
I'm defending C2 here, is that not clear?
I must have a different understanding of "defending" than you...
Speaking of the quest for potentially good systems, I was hoping for some feedback on my new system, Relative Value (www.collective2.com/go/relativevalue). It is a new system, up a couple of percentage points. I’d like to increase diversification, realism factor, and returns, while keeping drawdown to a minimum. What does everyone think so far? If I were able to keep up or even improve these results, would this qualify as a viable system? Please note that I am not accepting subscriber fees, at least not at this time, as this system is primarily for research purposes. Thanks, Matt.
Regarding CTAs, pls choose any at your will 
http://www.autumngold.com/Advisor/CTAProfile.php
There are very interested audited stats. lol
>How “well” have they done for years? Average 50%? 100%?
See link above.
>How were their max daily draw-downs in between annual results?
You can call and ask. 1-3% management fee guarantee you some good advertising from first-third level support boys and girls.
>Can they perform as well in limited base as $100K?
They have the same risks as public forward trading in C2. And if somebody can guarantee you that a system/CTA/trader will perform in the same way as in past history. Hmm… it’s not true
>Are they available to small-time investers like us?
In general - no. At least profitable ones and at least not for the C2 price I even don’t speak about private hedge funds where you have price for a ticket (trading capital) and you have to have connections to even buy the ticket. Risks usually still be the same lol
>Are the costs of their service similar to we paid here at C2?
Initial capital+ 1%-3% management fees + 20-30% of net profits. It’s true, but your risks still be the same as on C2 lol, but it’ll be well documented + you’ll have more sales persons around you+you’ll have great looking invoices and phone support from your heart attack. However you have to pay for that. Private hedge funds are even worse sometimes/good times the funds don’t accept investors whatever money the investors can offer. It’s even worse than CTAs. Risks are the same in most cases lol (Only level of trading capital changes)
So… please read a link in the top of the message, please choose your CTA and be happy and grab your money.
Eu
P.S. The discussion is really funny and I’m not trying to sell any BS current/new subscribers. The risk is always the same.
System is equities only, does not average down, and tries to keep as much of a balance as possible between long and short positions. Goal is 40 to 80 percent returns per year with 3 to 5 percent max drawdown. Money management principles are used to try to limit losses. I’d like to increase the profit pace, increase the average time positions are held, increase the diversification, and increase the realism factor. I have a few ideas about how to do this that I am implementing but I was hoping for suggestions. The system is maybe 80% non-discretionary (rules-based). I plan to refine the rules over time to improve performance as well as accomplish the goals listed above.
> BTW, there are NO C2 track records for “years”.
C2 didn’t exist “years” ago. It’s a fact, not a criticism.
> Much better and better documented than anything more than
anything on C2.
A fact of life. CTAs trade real money. Moreover, you cut what I was responding to. Cal implied CTA’s had frivolous track records relative to C2.
> 1%-3% management fees. 20-30% of net profits. Percentage wise
C2 tends to be more expensive and you pay win lose or draw more
often than not on C2.
Again, a response to Cal’s saying CTA’s charged relatively more than C2. Not a critic, just the facts Mam.
> C2’s rankings do not reward good risk/reward ratios. C2’s “Sharpe Ratio” is broken…
Well, yes! C2’s “Sharpe Ratio” is broken! Did you see my example
which you cut out? Do you not understand the math? And C2’s rankings do not reward good risk/reward ratios in any other way. The broken Sharpe is the only rankable risk-reward measure and it’s not a great risk-reward measure to begin with.
Want to attract CTA style money (AKA Billion$) to C2? Do a better
job spelling out and ranking risk-reward criteria. If you think this
would be harmful to C2 we do not reside on the same financial planet.
> I’m defending C2 here, is that not clear?
>I must have a different understanding of “defending” than you…
Obviously you have your agenda and I have mine. Here is some of the original post from the thread starter:
"Originally I titled this post: Is C2 dying?, but I changed my mind.
{snip}
Also if you check out the webtraffic at Alexa, C2’s traffic went down from 10,000th 2 months ago to 32,000th."
The status quo may be OK with you, but I’d like to see C2 grow and improve. An emphasis on risk-reward stats would be the #1 potential
improvement Matthew could make.
