Chris
I have an easy way to deal with ‘Pal’ posts.
Scroll, scroll, scroll.
Peter
NO doubt than many systems shown on this site should be closed by C2 administrators or by the system vendors themselves.
Many have such a high leverage and/or such high swings, even when profitable that it is totally ridiculous.
How can C2 administrators allow and accept swings that put accounts in deficits and let the sytem vendor continue trading.
difficult in real time.
In my view an account that has a 30 % loss from the starting capital should be closed automatically and leverage should be somewhat limited and regulated by C2 administrators and rules clearly and more apropriately imposed.
Midas short term and Midas long term are example of systems that should be simply prohibited and expulsed from C2.
Midas vendor is a clown and a junkie !
Charles -
You bring up an interesting idea (to have C2 kill systems according to certain parameters. While this would protect neophyte investors, is it really needed for the more sophisticated investors looking at this site? I would propose that potential SUBSCRIBERS be screened, and only those who had the proper makeup and financial status would be allowed. Kind of like the questions you have to answer (assets, risk tolerance) when you open a brokerage account. If you are qualified as sophisticated, you are assumed to be able to tell good from bad.
In either event, we both agree that potential subscribers (experienced and neophyte) need to keep away from bad systems here on C2 or anywhere else.
But unfortunately, as long as there sheep, there will be sheep shearers…
The systems you disparaged were not allowed to be made into test systems by the C2 admin. (due to various reasons like it has had trial subscribers, or it had published too many signals etc.) So, I had only two options. One to kill it or to continue testing some strategy and keep it closed to subscribers, which is what I did. No need to be so critical & personal. C2 is not only a place for publishing signals from systems, but also for testing systems/methods (some of the methods can’t even be back-tested because it uses complex chart patterns.)
Even though the open equity went below total account equity for those particular systems (which were renamed later), the closed equity never went below the starting equity and moreover, there were no margin call feature that time at C2. I agree a real account would be closed if not funded due to a margin call, but this is not a real account, it is a paper trading account and as such no limits like you proposed should be necessary.
Sorry but my language is French, not English.
This said you just contradict yourself with the open and closed equity. That your account would have liquidated due to your
intra day drawdowns is correct but then why do you explain almost the opposite in your systems descriptions.
Just like your theory that all Growth stocks were originally Value stocks when in fact it is the exact opposite, because you always grow more rapidly when you are a young and small company than when you are a large or very large company.
Just give us one name of a company that is growing faster because it became a large company !!!
JUST ONE KNOWN COMPANY AND LISTED…OBVIOUSLY !
why do you explain almost the opposite in your systems descriptions.
It is true that I took position sizes larger than what is described, but my main purpose that time was to test the strategy to find out the rules for precise entry which outweighed the need to stick to the description, especially when the method did not have any subscribers (which is again not my main purpose in developing system/methods at C2.)
>Just like your theory that all Growth stocks were originally Value stocks when in fact it is the exact opposite, because you always grow more rapidly when you are a young and small company than when you are a large or very large company.
Just give us one name of a company that is growing faster because it became a large company !!!
JUST ONE KNOWN COMPANY AND LISTED…OBVIOUSLY !
I disagree. All growth stocks must start as value stocks by definition. Value stocks are not only stocks that are large companies, it can be found in large, medium and small companies, regardless of size. I agree that growth stocks cannot be found in large companies, but again, I do not trade growth stocks. I believe in value.
Randy,
Hmm. That depends on what you call attractive, of course. Currency Scalper had a DD of 57% in the beginning. The others had DDs of 13-15%.
Could it be that you trade with very large amounts and that then forex has the advantage of liquidity (as Eu said)?
Jules
Currency Scalper does have an explanation for the early draw down on their system page (I wasn’t there to know how accurate that explanation is), but if correct the system has done very well since mid-November 2005. The other two have far less drawdown than most of the stock or futures systems on C2, so aren’t out of line with a typical C2 system in that regard. Their equity curves, relative to the vast majority of the systems offered on C2, look pretty good to me and should be much easier to autotrade with the new quote feed management.
Thanks, Randy.
Jules
Ross,
Please not take my assumption very serious. I was trying to make a joke (and I’m not best person to do it), but as I see by response of futures/forex guys I wasn’t so far from true. 
Anyway, what I said about “Tango” is true. (Everybody is so serious and printing money. Insanity. So much hatred. Anyway, trading was newer a place for mentally stable people lol )
most systems don’t work.
Agree. I start using C2 as educational source how to blow out.
Then there are the few systems that actually work
After I joined system vendor club I promised myself never comment other systems. Sorry.
From the point only my imho.
a) just love to teach others
The point isn’t valid in C2. You have to explain signals, not just provide it.
b) are more interested in developing systems
It’s half of of valid point. The kind of persons usually have clientèle if there aren’t new in the business.
c) realize that a stream of income is a nice hedge and income source.
Half of true again. In high liquid market you just have to compound and add contracts if you have good system. C2 might be used as source or raising capital, but risk of reverse engineering exists. Because nobody from future/forex guys answers (except two) we can only guess. And my half joke is still correct in average as well
If a person starts out with $3000
It sounds funny for me, because I’m offering a system, that barely can start from 50-75K and you’ll never be a billionaire in short terms and long terms under question as well. lol (it’s not commercial. It’s true.)
Jules
I love to see how my simple question about Forex can lead to world domination.
I’d like to see answer on your question myself.
Could it be that you trade with very large amounts and that then forex has the advantage of liquidity (as Eu said)?
Ohh… No. I’m not sure that any C2’s subscriber has the kind of limit. imho, the markets are attract “small investors” by its leverage.
Eu
