Pal, you really like to hear yourself talk, don’t you?
There is nothing wrong with the current system. Offensive posts that cross the line are removed by MK, everything else stays.
Its up to the reader to determine the value of a post.
This whole discussion reeks of a solution in search of a problem.
> I suggest a cutoff point of say a Collective2 Rating of 750 as the minimum standard. Afterall, what is the use of this rating, if not as a proof of the merit of a trader.
ROTFLMAO… you are "proof" that the rating has nothing to do with
"the merit of a trader." Nearly all of your systems would have been
belly up in the real world. Even Matthew has suggested the rankings are of of little value.
> If I was in charge, this system would not post
Jon. Nice work on your system of late, but if we add up
the performance of your three systems (one came out
under Jon L and lost $70K in a couple of days, another
is still down $30K) you are still in the red.
Don’t you think you should still be banned from posting
based on your own logic?
No, you are the proof. C2 Rating: 189. You are not a productive system vendor and I doubt that you are a paying subscriber. You abuse and harass people in every forum and twist their words and their meaning to suit your hidden agenda. You should be banned from C2.
I disagree. MK freely allows people like Sam Cook to keep on abusing and harassing system vendors to suit their hidden agenda taking precious time away from developing their systems and trading.
"Pal, you really like to hear yourself talk, don’t you?"
This is nothing… you should have heard some of his other metaphorical and philosophical replies to what where quantitative and factual questions. Most of what I hear from Pal is double-talk, typically devoid of substance.
> I disagree. MK freely allows people like Sam Cook to keep on abusing and harassing system vendors to suit their hidden agenda taking precious time away from developing their systems and trading.
Hang on there Pal boy. I usually mention system performance (or lack
there of) if the vendor attempts to tout himself through his posts. As an
example please see your post above. You claimed you C2 rating somehow reflects the value of yourself as a trader and/or the value of your systems. I believe MK has stated that system performance and C2 rankings are not correlated. I have shown in prior posts there are serious flaws in the rating system.
Granted I have gone on rants asking for greater realism and risk/reward weighting in the rankings. Certain vendors (with huge draw-downs or unrealistic sized trades) have taken offense…(gee wiz, I wonder why?).
As a practical matter I am not a vendor here. I am a potential subscriber.
The only reason I did a free trial system, as a "vendor" (any subscriber can do this), was to check out the C2 mechanics. With all due respect I think it prudent that any potential C2 customer do the same, and I find it odd that "vendors" would hold this against potential subscribers.
>I believe MK has stated that system performance and C2 rankings are not correlated.
I disagree, sammy boy.
>Granted I have gone on rants asking for greater realism and risk/reward weighting in the rankings.
I agree. It is not fair to do so especially when there are no options on futures to use as an hedge here at C2.
>As a practical matter I am not a vendor here. I am a potential subscriber.
Thanks for your honesty. I think that one should subscribe to a system before commenting on it. Then they can write a review on it. That is only fair.
>The only reason I did a free trial system, as a "vendor" (any subscriber can do this), was to check out the C2 mechanics. With all due respect I think it prudent that any potential C2 customer do the same, and I find it odd that "vendors" would hold this against potential subscribers.
I think that when you incurred a loss in your system here at C2, you got cold feet and discontinued trading, atleast that is the impression I get.
ps. and the leverage on forex is way too low to serve as an effective hedge for the futures trades in the portfolio.
>> As a practical matter I am not a vendor here. I am a potential subscriber.
> Thanks for your honesty. I think that one should subscribe to a system before commenting on it. Then they can write a review on it. That is only fair.
I don’t have to subscribe to point out that I don’t like “top ranked” systems having $300K drawdowns. I would be a fool to subscribe to
such a system. Don’t you agree?
>>The only reason I did a free trial system, as a “vendor” (any subscriber can do this), was to check out the C2 mechanics.
> I think that when you incurred a loss in your system here at C2, you got cold feet and discontinued trading, atleast that is the impression I get.
A $1000 loss on a $100K paper account and someone is
going to fold?
Whatever. Your loses are 1000’s of times that size.
I may well have started trading before you were born Pal.
So you can take your impression and stick it in your $300K drawdown.
