| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Daniel Ramirez |
 |
| |
|
| When: | 12/03/06 (20:48) | |
|
|
|
|
| | Watch out! System vender of Eclipse FX (Mr. Nelson) is not responding to. Another disaster happened unfortunately! |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Index ( C2 Score: 975 ) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (11:49) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Daniel Ramirez of 12/03/06 (20:48) Watch out! System vender of Eclipse FX (Mr. Nelson) is not responding to. Another disaster happened unfortunately!
I think Eclipse FX is a poster child for why a several month profitable equity curve is no guarantee of making $$$. How many times have we seen a popular system blow up like this?
Notice the last couple of trades? Where attempting to average down blow up? That is why I keep saying, that the only worthwhile system is one that outperforms the market. Most systems that have nice equity curves are due to dumb luck, leveraging tricks like averaging down, or being highly leveraged and riding the recent market rise. None of these have any value, but most good systems here fall into those categories.
From what I have seen so far, CTS Snapback (Fanus) is quite interesting. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (13:15) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Index of 12/04/06 (11:49) I think Eclipse FX is a poster child for why a several month profitable equity curve is no guarantee of making $$$. How many times have we seen a popular system blow up like this?
...
See entire
> Notice the last couple of trades? Where attempting to average down blow up? That is why I keep saying, that the only worthwhile system is one that outperforms the market.
Of course it should outperform the market, but that really doesn't
prove it won't blow up like this. The clues to trouble were the size
of losers and intra-trade drawdowns relative to the small
winners. Also the wild jumps in position size. These things were
going on long before the last few trades and the blow up. Notice
on all the large DD's they were scaling in, sometimes 100X
the original one lot trade size. This is like doubling your bet every time
you lose in a casino...it may may work for a while, as you win back your
last loser, but eventually the casino takes ALL your money and you
are out of the game.
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (14:13) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 12/04/06 (13:15) > Notice the last couple of trades? Where attempting to average down blow up? That is why I keep saying, that the only worthwhile system is one that outperforms the market....
See entire
I wonder how we can minimize the probability that this happens with real subscribers. Perhaps it would help a little if C2 displays some statistics about the trading style, like degree of diversification and amount of averaging down. These characteristics can be infered already from the trade details, but perhaps some people do not look into it.
Another idea would be to create a special category of systems that have restrictions on money managment, e.g. max x% on one position (where positions with the same underlying count as one), max y times scaling in, etc. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Ssss Ttttt ( C2 Score: 943) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (14:28) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Index of 12/04/06 (11:49) I think Eclipse FX is a poster child for why a several month profitable equity curve is no guarantee of making $$$. How many times have we seen a popular system blow up like this?
...
See entire
I disagree about averaging down as being simply a leveraging trick. Like any other method, the effectiveness of a technique depends on using it wisely and managing positions adequately. One can experience substantial drawdowns over time by continually getting stopped out...the equivalent of getting dinged to death. Stops are not the only correct way to trade, but neither is averaging. However, BOTH are equally useful when used correctly.
The problems with most systems is that they fail simply due to greed. A string of successful trades usually leads to the provider getting cocky and trading a lot more than should be opened at any one time. This is a recipe for inevitable disaster and the primary cause for most system crashing here. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Science Trader ( C2 Score: 266) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (14:41) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/04/06 (14:13) I wonder how we can minimize the probability that this happens with real subscribers. Perhaps it would help a little if C2 displays some statistics about the trading style, like degree of diversification and amount of averaging down. These characteristics can be infered already from the trade details, but perhaps some people do not look into it....
See entire
As an alternative subscribers can also protect themselves by enforcing a margin call once the equity drops a certain percentage. I.e. suppose you were trading Eclipse in a $100,000 account from the start, but the max. amount you were willing to lose was 20%. Instead of putting the entire $100,00 in a forex account, you could put up only X% and put the remaining in a regular savings account. You would need to calculate X such that a margin call would occur (and the position closed automatically by the broker) just at the time your combined capital is down more than 20%.
(NB note that the leverage in your trading account would be deliberately much higher than on C2, but across both your trading and savings account it would be equal to C2; As a result you would need a broker that allows more leverage than the vendor uses). |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Index ( C2 Score: 975) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (14:58) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Ssss Ttttt of 12/04/06 (14:28) I disagree about averaging down as being simply a leveraging trick. Like any other method, the effectiveness of a technique depends on using it wisely and managing positions adequately. One can experience substantial drawdowns over time by continually getting stopped out...the equivalent of getting dinged to death. Stops are not the only correct way to trade, but neither is averaging. However, BOTH are equally useful when used correctly....
See entire
" I disagree about averaging down as being simply a leveraging trick. Like any other method, the effectiveness of a technique depends on using it wisely and managing positions adequately."
I have seen few successful examples of systems that average down, here. Usually, averaging down is a clear sign of someone who does NOT trade wisely NOR manage positions adequately. Rather than taking a loss, they hold&hope or double up, hoping for the market to turn. In fact, they seemed to be among the ones that were savaged by the mid-May "collapse."
Averaging down works for modest drawdowns or runups. But occasionally it deepens, and the there are no more rabbits to be pulled out of the hat.
Before saying this, you need to back it up with evidence. Opinions don't matter, facts and reality do. We have seen plenty of evidence against this technique. This is just one example of many. They look good for awhile, and then suddenly, the whole thing blows up in the vendor's face, often within a couple of weeks. The veterans here probably remember quite a few occurrences of this.
Averaging down to me, is a sure sign of trading immaturity. It doesn't go with strong leveraging. As Sam rightly said above, constantly doubling down works for a time, but eventually the casino does take all your money. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (15:01) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Science Trader of 12/04/06 (14:41) As an alternative subscribers can also protect themselves by enforcing a margin call once the equity drops a certain per...
See entire
That's a clever idea... Although it wouldn't help with stocks. I suppose that you still agree with your own suggestion of having a user defined stop that can be activated from C2? |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (15:07) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Ssss Ttttt of 12/04/06 (14:28) I disagree about averaging down as being simply a leveraging trick. Like any other method, the effectiveness of a technique depends on using it wisely and managing positions adequately. One can experience substantial drawdowns over time by continually getting stopped out...the equivalent of getting dinged to death. Stops are not the only correct way to trade, but neither is averaging. However, BOTH are equally useful when used correctly....
See entire
Averaging down one or two times is not necessarily a problem, it is excessive use of it what creates problems. Even then it is only a problem if this leads to a huge position size (e.g. averaging down 1 share of $20 to 100 shares is not a problem). And at the very least it implies that the original signal wasn't optimal. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (15:09) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Ssss Ttttt of 12/04/06 (14:28) I disagree about averaging down as being simply a leveraging trick. Like any other method, the effectiveness of a technique depends on using it wisely and managing positions adequately. One can experience substantial drawdowns over time by continually getting stopped out...the equivalent of getting dinged to death. Stops are not the only correct way to trade, but neither is averaging. However, BOTH are equally useful when used correctly....
See entire
> I disagree about averaging down as being simply a leveraging trick.
I agree to a very small extent. I can see getting a second signal even
though you are in the red and adding to a losing position, but I doubt
you took the time to look at the system I was discussing. He averaged down 100X the initial position. It is not a question of if he would blow
up but when. Moreover, over the long run, I am unaware of any successful
scale trading CTA.... show me one if you know of one. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Ssss Ttttt ( C2 Score: 943) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (15:11) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Index of 12/04/06 (14:58) " I disagree about averaging down as being simply a leveraging trick. Like any other method, the effectiveness of a technique depends on using it wisely and managing positions adequately."
...
See entire
The evidence is my own system. I use averaging and hedging well over 90% of the time as opposed to stops which I use much less often. However, the difference is that I allocate wisely (I don't trade 100% of available capital in one trade) and as a result I rarely experience a drawdown of more than 15% or so. Even if it approaches this area, the recovery is quick. Six Sigma continues to grow in equity over time and is on the verge of making another growth high. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pinnacle Trading ( C2 Score: 73) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (15:14) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Ssss Ttttt of 12/04/06 (14:28) I disagree about averaging down as being simply a leveraging trick. Like any other method, the effectiveness of a technique depends on using it wisely and managing positions adequately. One can experience substantial drawdowns over time by continually getting stopped out...the equivalent of getting dinged to death. Stops are not the only correct way to trade, but neither is averaging. However, BOTH are equally useful when used correctly....
See entire
"I disagree about averaging down as being simply a leveraging trick. Like any other method, the effectiveness of a technique depends on using it wisely and managing positions adequately. One can experience substantial drawdowns over time by continually getting stopped out...the equivalent of getting dinged to death. Stops are not the only correct way to trade, but neither is averaging. However, BOTH are equally useful when used correctly."
Excellent post. In a "noisy" trading enviroment, stops will bleed your account dry and brokers win BIG, yet in a trending enviroment, averaging down without the benefit of a sound and scientific trading methodology, is equally lethal. Knowing where to place a hard stop is just as important as knowing when to average down which ultimately enhances your returns and gives you a nice edge. It may sound easy, but unfortuantely, it is anything but and requires years of hard work and research in the science of market behavior.
.
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Science Trader ( C2 Score: 266) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (15:19) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/04/06 (15:01) That's a clever idea... Although it wouldn't help with stocks. I suppose that you still agree with your own suggestion of having a user defined stop that can be activated from C2?
Jules,
user defined stop would be easier for a lot of people, but until it's implemented (or even considered), the solution I posted here might help. In addition the margin trick offers more security than the user defined stop, as it works completely independent from C2 technology and internet connectivity. It's also more hassle though as you need to calculate the money in the brokerage account frequently and also need to transfer money between the trading and savings account regularly (this might be easier if you replace the savings account by a second trading account with the same broker). I agree that stocks are a different story. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Ssss Ttttt ( C2 Score: 943) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (15:22) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 12/04/06 (15:09) > I disagree about averaging down as being simply a leveraging trick.
I agree to a very small extent. I can see getting a second signal even
...
See entire
Averaging down 100x the initial position is certainly insane. I am 100% with you on that. Averaging should be done on a linear basis and not exponential or some multiple of the original. Even then, one should define the number of times allowed to average beforehand and the final limit should still not present an overleveraged situation to do it properly. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (15:24) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Science Trader of 12/04/06 (14:41) As an alternative subscribers can also protect themselves by enforcing a margin call once the equity drops a certain per...
See entire
> As an alternative subscribers can also protect themselves by enforcing a margin call once the equity drops a certain percentage.
Haha! In the trading business we also call this a stop loss!!!!!!
Indeed this is a pre-coded % stop loss in trade station.
You say:
"- general tips on picking trading systems..."
You should know, since you are in the business of giving
advise on picking systems, that nearly every richs to rags
disaster on C2 involved over scaling and/or failure to us stops. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Science Trader ( C2 Score: 266) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (15:25) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 12/04/06 (15:24) > As an alternative subscribers can also protect themselves by enforcing a margin call once the equity drops a certain percentage....
See entire
what's your point? Please clarify. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (15:41) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Science Trader of 12/04/06 (15:25) what's your point? Please clarify.
> what's your point? Please clarify.
That subscribers should avoid systems altogether that average down
excessively and can't bite the bullet and take a loss. If you have to place your own "stops" on an overly aggressive vendor you might as well trade
it yourself.
Again, for some relative newbies here, look back to May, or any
steep trend reversal in the indexes. Systems looked great averaging
down as long as the general market went up (sooner or later they
made a nice comeback), but a little 10% correction in the INX
bankrupted many of C2 "top" performers of the time. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (15:44) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Ssss Ttttt of 12/04/06 (15:11) The evidence is my own system. I use averaging and hedging well over 90% of the time as opposed to stops which I use muc...
See entire
> The evidence is my own system.
May I point out that your largest run-up and smoothest
equity curve coincided with the least averaging down? |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (15:56) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Ssss Ttttt of 12/04/06 (15:11) The evidence is my own system. I use averaging and hedging well over 90% of the time as opposed to stops which I use muc...
See entire
Your system started out fine.
Of course, we were all waiting and watching too see what you'd do when confronted with a loss.
Now we know ... you hold it indefinately, while hedging it off. Why? All this does is create added costs (slippage, commissions) for the trader.
If you were TRADING your system, instead of worrying about your system stats, you'd never do such a thing. It's simply a gross disservice to a trader's bottom line.
Ask yourself, are you going to roll over your losing ES position into H07 in a few days? Of course you aren't. The loss should have been taken a long, long time ago. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Science Trader ( C2 Score: 266) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (16:11) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 12/04/06 (15:41) > what's your point? Please clarify.
That subscribers should avoid systems altogether that average down
excessively and can't bite the bullet and take a loss. If you have to place your own "stops" on an overly aggressive vendor you might as well trade
...
See entire
Ok, got it. I agree that novice subscribers should avoid systems that average down aggressively in the first place. For those more experienced, it can still be worth to trade systems like Eclipse for a while given that they understand the risk and apply tight risk management. I would recommend a subscriber should define a hard stop-loss on any system he subscribes to (e.g. X times max drawdown, % equity etc.), even if the system doesn't average down. As such my solution not only applies to systems that average down, but to any forex/futures system. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Ssss Ttttt ( C2 Score: 943) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (16:38) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/04/06 (15:56)
Your system started out fine.
Of course, we were all waiting and watching too see what you'd do when confronted with a loss....
See entire
All systems will experience a loss sooner or later.
""Of course, we were all waiting and watching too see what you'd do when confronted with a loss.
Now we know ... you hold it indefinately, while hedging it off. Why? All this does is create added costs (slippage, commissions) for the trader. ""
Stats have nothing to do with it. Signals presented are optimal for that given moment, but that doesn't mean the market does not change character in time. When this happens, one can stop out at a loss and re-enter several times or choose to hedge and rotate positions. If you choose to stop out, one can just as easily rack up losses, commission, etc so there is no difference. My method of hedging and rotating still produces an underlying growth pattern. There was no gross disservice to the bottom line. If I had not accumulated profits via hedging and position rotation and just let a loss ride and multiply by adding to it uncontrollably....THAT would be a disservice.
Don't attack me because you don't like the way I do things. I am simply making an arguement that using stops, hedging, and adding to positions are all different faces of strategizing and trade management. ALL of them are effective if used wisely yet at the same time ALL of them can destroy an account if not used properly. All of the methods can be used alone or they can be used in combination. The question is not whether one is better than the other or whether it is wrong to use any of them. Rather, the bottom line is, can you use any of them to trade effectively and produce long term growth without risk. There is no single correct way to trade. It comes down to each person having to find a method or system that they are comfortable with regardless of the techniques used. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Brad Goldman ( C2 Score: 957) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (17:25) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Ssss Ttttt of 12/04/06 (16:38) All systems will experience a loss sooner or later.
""Of course, we were all waiting and watching too see what you'd do when confronted with a loss....
See entire
It seems a system can do one of 2 things, have a high win% and a high drawdown, or a win % at around 50% but a lower drawdown. But they can not do both at the same time.
My goal for my systems is to have a win % above 60%, with no more than a medium drawdown.
As for averaging down positions, I think it depends. I worked with a mentor who would average down if the 2nd signal was near the 1st signal.
This can be good in that it turns a losing trade into a winning trade. However, this sometimes does not work.
The technicals may be fine, but you could have a news story like plane crashing into a building, and then both trades become losers. For example, in a real money trade with him, a small plane crashed into a building in New York, I think it was a baseball player's plane. A perfrect trade was stopped out for a loss 1 min after it got filled.
If a system is going to hedge down its positions, then as long as the subscribers know this is happening and they have a enough money to cover multiple positions, then that may be fine. The problem I think occurs if the vendor does not tell them that they will need to hold overnight hedging positions. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (17:44) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Ssss Ttttt of 12/04/06 (16:38) All systems will experience a loss sooner or later.
""Of course, we were all waiting and watching too see what you'd do when confronted with a loss....
See entire
Hahah, what a joke.
Very transparent.
So, ES was "optimal" to trade until you had a big open loss. Then everything else became "optimal".
Yeah, right. Last I contacted you, you didn't even have backtests of your system, and this was well after you had started trading. Has that changed?
Lemme guess, when you're forced to liquidate the position on contract expiration ES will become "optimal' agaim. Amiright?
There are only two reasons to hedge a losing position rather than close it outright (in futures). First is liquidity issues. The second is to avoid a nasty-looking closed-out loss. Guess which one applies here.
It was all about you trying to acheive your stated six-sigma losses are rare and small thing, and you dang well know it. Pretending otherwise is very transparent.
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Index ( C2 Score: 975) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (18:01) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Ssss Ttttt of 12/04/06 (15:11) The evidence is my own system. I use averaging and hedging well over 90% of the time as opposed to stops which I use muc...
See entire
"The evidence is my own system. "
I see a system that has stalled out for the last few months. This is not evidence. And your track record is not long enough to evidence anything. Now is one example ever considered as sufficient evidence to make general claims.
The problem with calling anything evidence is, that it needs to be SIGNIFICANT. Sam's point was that people keep trying to dilute an adverse move, but the occasional time it gets away from them is when they and their subscribers get wiped out.
You can average down stock holdings. But you DON'T average down leveraged investments. The stoploss is almost ALWAYS the better choice in the face of an adverse move. It is a general trading that appropriate stop losses are a sign of a mature trader. And averaging down leveraged investments is almost always recommended against. So frankly, I do not agree with you at all. Having an opinion that it is a good trading practice has no meaning. Hardnosed, significant testing is the only thing that really washed. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Ssss Ttttt ( C2 Score: 943) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (18:28) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Index of 12/04/06 (18:01) "The evidence is my own system. "
I see a system that has stalled out for the last few months. This is not evidence. And your track record is not long enough to evidence anything. Now is one example ever considered as sufficient evidence to make general claims....
See entire
We'll agree to disagree then because I have backtested my system for over 15 years before even putting it on C2 and I know my method works. The only thing hardnosed here is being single minded that there is only 1 way to trade and assume that everyone else that does it different will fail.
Why is it you feel the need to go on the offensive so much? They say those that cannot, build themselves up by tearing others down. I could understand being critical of systems that just never work or those that crash, but is it really necessary to try and crush everyone here at C2? Is there anyone here you have not argued with? Lighten up Ross. I certainly don't have a problem with people doing things in different ways if long term results are good. Why can't you?
Unless there is any constructive to say, I'm done with this conversation. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jon Lechleidner ( C2 Score: 225) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (18:49) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/04/06 (15:56)
Your system started out fine.
Of course, we were all waiting and watching too see what you'd do when confronted with a loss....
See entire
Extremely well said Jason, I personally witnessed SixSig get short at 1316, and he's still holding today (1411). In a couple days the Dec's are gonna expire..........Jon |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (18:51) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Ssss Ttttt of 12/04/06 (15:11) The evidence is my own system. I use averaging and hedging well over 90% of the time as opposed to stops which I use muc...
See entire
"Example, if 2 positions worth 6 contracts each are taken short on the ES for 12 contracts total, a full short term hedge may initiate 12 contracts on the YM at one time. Because this is a hedge situation, it does not increase risk and in fact reduces it."
What is the difference between a "hedge" and a stop in this case (aside from doubling commissions and slippage)? If the "hedge" is 100% correlated then the original position is in fact the same as flat (i.e. stopped out at the time of the hedge). If it's less than 100% correlated than the position is less than 100% hedged. Please explain the benefit of being short 12 ESZ and long 12 YMZ? If you are bullish YMZ why not just be long YMZ? If you are bearish ESZ why not be short ESZ. Again you have double the costs and little to gain. I've known brokers who spread losses so the customer doesn't see the bottom line closed loss. What's the difference here? We all can see you are holding a $30,000 open loss....and that your system has under performed "buy and hold" since August. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (19:42) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 12/04/06 (18:51) "Example, if 2 positions worth 6 contracts each are taken short on the ES for 12 contracts total, a full short term hedge may initiate 12 contracts on the YM at one time. Because this is a hedge situation, it does not increase risk and in fact reduces it."
...
See entire
Why do we discuss SixSigma? This thread was about EclipseFX and the ruin of subsribers accounts. Then we discussed overleverage and averaging down. SixSigma agreed that averaging down 100 times is bad and the position should never become too large. Why are his positions relevant? |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (19:59) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/04/06 (19:42) Why do we discuss SixSigma? This thread was about EclipseFX and the ruin of subsribers accounts. Then we discussed overl...
See entire
Because I can't stand the way he looks at me, with those come-hither eyes.
Oh yeah, and thinking about the EclipseFX account blowouts makes me shudder. Too reminiscent of similar events I've had happen personally. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (20:41) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/04/06 (19:42) Why do we discuss SixSigma? This thread was about EclipseFX and the ruin of subsribers accounts. Then we discussed overl...
See entire
> Why do we discuss SixSigma?
Because SixSigma put up SixSigma as an example that
averaging down was not only OK, but good.
BTW, here's a system very similar to SixSigma in terms
of average loss and win %: E-WOLF EMINI
Granted much heavier leverage, but the message here is the same:
if you sacrifice large losses (and average down) for a high win% you run a risk of letting a big one drag you down.
Sometimes "cutting and running" isn't the worst thing you can do ;-). |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jon Lechleidner ( C2 Score: 225) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (20:45) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/04/06 (19:59) Because I can't stand the way he looks at me, with those come-hither eyes.
Oh yeah, and thinking about the Ecli...
See entire
Uh, Jason, I gave you props, I thought you could trade, and now I found that you don't make moves?..........I've said it before, and I'll say it again; " make some moves bro, log some miles, and make some dough".............Jon |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (21:13) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jon Lechleidner of 12/04/06 (20:45) Uh, Jason, I gave you props, I thought you could trade, and now I found that you don't make moves?..........I've said it...
See entire
First off, I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say. Are you saying I should make a move on Mr. SixSigma because he is sexy?
I've never claimed to be a good trader.
I've claimed to have lots of experience. I can trade any account into the ground, let me tell you.
I can also spot system vendors/shills that have the same inclinations, easily.
Let's just say I'm a well-trained expert on what DOESN'T work. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Index ( C2 Score: 975) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (21:22) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Ssss Ttttt of 12/04/06 (18:28) We'll agree to disagree then because I have backtested my system for over 15 years before even putting it on C2 and I know my method works. The only thing hardnosed here is being single minded that there is only 1 way to trade and assume that everyone else that does it different will fail....
See entire
"I do not agree to disagree." When someone says something that is quite naive, I will address it.
You put up your system as evidence, and said some things with little basis in reality. You think this won't be addressed? The industry heavyweights would chuckle at half the stuff you said. One system is not evidence; I was amazed you would even say something so foolish.
You need to be more than a "system developer." You need to understand the money management, leverage, industry, world economic effects, and many other things to be taken seriously. Your 15 year history is not evident here on C2, so it is a nonissue. Most of us here have learned, suffered, tried, relearned, tried again, changed tactics, etc. Your own experience will be better shown by not clinging and supporting things that are usually considered as exercises in futility by others.
"They say those that cannot, build themselves up by tearing others down." Again, a nice saying with little basis in reality.
The perception of it as personal attacks means you need a thicker skin. This is a forum to discuss the issues. If you are going to cry when you feel picked on, even though that is not the case, then you don't understand the purpose. Grow up, come back, and contribute. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Science Trader ( C2 Score: 266) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (22:10) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/04/06 (19:42) Why do we discuss SixSigma? This thread was about EclipseFX and the ruin of subsribers accounts. Then we discussed overl...
See entire
Ironically, the current Eclipse drawdown is still less than the max historical drawdown of Hawk-fx, which apparently is the "Most Popular" system on C2. So, who knows. Maybe a year from now, Eclipse FX will be there too and everyone has forgotten about the current misery... |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jon Lechleidner ( C2 Score: 225) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (22:18) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/04/06 (21:13) First off, I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say. Are you saying I should make a move on Mr. SixSigma because he is sexy?
...
See entire
Let me put it another way; "Move Bitch!" Is that clear?.
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (22:52) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jon Lechleidner of 12/04/06 (22:18) Let me put it another way; "Move Bitch!" Is that clear?.
No. You couldn't be any less clear, but I think I get it.
I know that's a hip-hop lyric, and in your system description it says you are in the "club" business.
Is that it? LEW-DA!
Unfortunately these forums don't have a delete/modify post option. When you get your drink on, even though some very ridiculous things are said here, you should probably pass on replying until the next morning.
Cheers! |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (22:57) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Science Trader of 12/04/06 (22:10) Ironically, the current Eclipse drawdown is still less than the max historical drawdown of Hawk-fx, which apparently is ...
See entire
Interesting observation. Very. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/04/06 (23:46) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/04/06 (22:57)
Interesting observation. Very.
Upon reading my own reply, and knowing how much internet replies are easily misconstrued, i'd like to be very clear that my reply was not in the least sarcastic.
That was indeed a very, very interesting observation. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Walter Rines ( C2 Score: 725) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/05/06 (0:37) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/04/06 (23:46)
Upon reading my own reply, and knowing how much internet replies are easily misconstrued, i'd like to be very clear that my reply was not in the least sarcastic....
See entire
Anyone that can trade their way out of a wet paper bag knows that stops are optimal in trending markets and averaging is optimal in choppy markets. Of course, determining which type of market you face any given day is the hard part, depending on the instrument. Some instruments just lend themselves to averaging by nature of how they trade. But to just say averaging is a recipe for disaster and things like that is ridiculous. Although I agree with the poster awhile back that said discipline is required, i.e. pre-planned max # of averagings (I prefer 2-3 as a max myself) and fixed linear scale.
W |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Science Trader ( C2 Score: 266) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/05/06 (0:40) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/04/06 (23:46)
Upon reading my own reply, and knowing how much internet replies are easily misconstrued, i'd like to be very clear that my reply was not in the least sarcastic....
See entire
Thanks and don't worry, I didn't interpret it as sarcastic at all. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pete * |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/05/06 (8:37) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Science Trader of 12/04/06 (22:10) Ironically, the current Eclipse drawdown is still less than the max historical drawdown of Hawk-fx, which apparently is ...
See entire
Yes, an unfortunate side effect of the way systems are graphed at C2.
If Eclipse later gets its net value up to $500k, this current drawdown will appear as a tiny blip in the equity curve just like the huge drawdowns in HawkFX from 2005 do. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Eu New ( C2 Score: 965) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/05/06 (19:34) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/04/06 (14:13) I wonder how we can minimize the probability that this happens with real subscribers. Perhaps it would help a little if C2 displays some statistics about the trading style, like degree of diversification and amount of averaging down. These characteristics can be infered already from the trade details, but perhaps some people do not look into it....
See entire
May I ignore bullies? Thank you.
I wonder how we can minimize the probability that this happens with real subscribers.
My 2c. It's futile. You must to understand trading and put your safe belts (Lew is doing it and it's good approach) with risk to ruin the system. Or you have to blindly follow the signals. Honestly, with C2 rates of blowing up I would recommend it only my enemy ;) There is no free lunch.
Perhaps it would help a little if C2 displays some statistics about the trading style
No. Until system vendor will disclose a system risks in advance it won't help. C2 lags in it's estimations.
Another idea would be to create a special category of systems that have restrictions on money management
It might ruin a system. As a system vendor I crossed with different modifications of the system. Only one was B/E and second was highly speculative by my records it should be profitable at the moment. Other modifications finished in red.
I don't want to discuss books about stops/leveraging. It's religious war. I have very stupid approach. If you say to me, that your dog predict the market by his behavior I wouldn't laugh. First question will be may I test it? If it works it works. I don't care about reasons why it works until it works. I'll try to understand, but it's not necessary lol
If Eclipse later gets its net value up to $500k, this current drawdown will appear as a tiny blip in the equity curve just like the huge drawdowns in HawkFX from 2005 do.
If it works don't touch it ;)
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Eu New ( C2 Score: 965) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/05/06 (20:00) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Eu New of 12/05/06 (19:34) May I ignore bullies? Thank you.
I wonder how we can minimize the probability that this happens with real subscribers.
...
See entire
btw: I just published an exit from position with 40% loss. In the case stops didn't work. Pls, show me any forex/futures system on C2 that can handle the kind of loss without blow up. lol From other side it's just existing fact/risk for stocks, kind of white stats noise ;) Leverage is two sided sword lol |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/05/06 (23:46) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Eu New of 12/05/06 (19:34) May I ignore bullies? Thank you.
I wonder how we can minimize the probability that this happens with real subscribers.
...
See entire
"No. Until system vendor will disclose a system risks in advance it won't help. C2 lags in it's estimations."
That's why I think it would be good if C2 created the possibility of restricted systems. What I mean is this: If a vendor wants, he can specify to C2 that his system will never send a signal that brings a position to more than 20% of the account value (or any other percentage that he wants, but let's take this as an example). Next, C2 will do two things:
1. C2 will mark the system as a "max 20% per position system" on the system's page.
2. C2 will refuse to send any order that violates this restriction.
Every vendor will still be able to create a system with full freedom of trading. Such a system just won't get the mark. Every subscriber is still free to subscribe to such a system.
The advantages of this are:
a. The subscribers know in advance that, with the marked systems, the vendor will not be able to violate his own promisses about the kind of risks that he will take. Of course this does not eliminate the risk of ruin. The system can still have losses, but at least they will be losses that agree with the type of risks that the subscriber wanted to take.
b. It will be easier for subscribers to identify systems that may take huge risks of a sudden loss. The risk of these systems won't change, but the probability that a naive subscriber is lured into them might decrease.
c. Some mistakes will be prevented. E.g. yesterday a system that I trade made the mistake to add to a position instead of closing it. This was in violation with the specifications that it would have at most 20% on one position. I knew this, but the autotrade software simply executed the signal, so we instead of 0% we had 40% in that position for more than an hour. In the construction that I describe, this would not have happened, as the vendor would get a message that his signal is rejected. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Eu New ( C2 Score: 965) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/06/06 (14:03) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/05/06 (23:46) "No. Until system vendor will disclose a system risks in advance it won't help. C2 lags in it's estimations."
...
See entire
I wouldn't agree with your proposition, Even Tango is perfect fit for it ;)
C2 suppose to verify trades and estimate the trades reality. Period. Any affiliation of C2 with a system vendor will destroy the business. Any restrictions to system vendors will be meaningless. (imho of course)
What I'd like to say that C2 isn't money making machine. It's just a tool. Subscribers are allowed to have a brain lol and use the C2's data in their favor (hopefully)
Estimation of a risk is very complicated topic, but you suppose to have number of max possible loss of your account, before you subscribe to any system.
System is averaging down? - Well, how many legs and what is exit if the market doesn't come back?
System has stops? - well, what is max known number of consecutive stops?
System doesn't have stops? - well, what is underlying risk and % of capital per position?
....
And so on, and so on. If you don't have any answers about risks from a system vendor you must answer on the questions yourself. Finally you have to come back with some number how much you can loose on a system and ideally with probability of the loss. not how much you can make.
Eu
P.S. Everybody must do his/her homework. If you don't have your risk estimation you just gamble on C2. ;)
P.S.S. Disclosure of risk isn't equal disclosure of a system rules. You can ask about that a system vendor. It's practically impossible to use risk estimation for reverse engineering. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pete * |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (7:55) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Eu New of 12/06/06 (14:03) I wouldn't agree with your proposition, Even Tango is perfect fit for it ;)
C2 suppose to verify trades and estimate the trades reality. Period. Any affiliation of C2 with a system vendor will destroy the business. Any restrictions to system vendors will be meaningless. (imho of course)
...
See entire
"If you don't have any answers about risks from a system vendor you must answer on the questions yourself. "
"Everybody must do his/her homework. If you don't have your risk estimation you just gamble on C2"
I disagree.
You can do all the homework in the world but if you are trading someone elses system then there is no possible way to accurately determine the risk ahead of time.
Hypothetical: For the last 6 months a vendor has always traded 10 contracts ES in every trade. You start autotrading it and then one day out of the blue the vendor trades 50 contracts instead (maybe all at once, maybe averaging down). There was no way to see that coming.
Unless vendors are willing to commit to hard rules that C2 actually enforces (versus empty promises in their system descriptions that are routinely ignored) then subscribers are always going to be at the mercy of vendors who are more interested in keeping up a pretty facade of high % wins rather than sound risk mgmt.
Just because vendor X had never done something risky or stupid before doesnt mean they arent going to do it today.
Looking at EclipseFX before Nov, could you have determined that the vendor would hold a losing position into this kind of severe drawdown? |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (12:14) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Eu New of 12/06/06 (14:03) I wouldn't agree with your proposition, Even Tango is perfect fit for it ;)
C2 suppose to verify trades and estimate the trades reality. Period. Any affiliation of C2 with a system vendor will destroy the business. Any restrictions to system vendors will be meaningless. (imho of course)
...
See entire
I agree with you that subscribers will still have to do their homework and that C2 can't think for them. But C2 don't you think that C2 can make their task a little easier by displaying more statistics about the trading style? It already shows Annualized return, Max draw down, P/L per unit, and average time per trade; why not something like the maximum position size?
You said
"C2 suppose to verify trades and estimate the trades reality. Period."
But that isn't all what C2 does. C2 also sends the signals to the subscribers for autotrading. These signals are modified by C2 according to what the subscriber specifies in his Trading permissions with respect to scale and trade size. Since C2 is already modifying the signal, why not have some other modifications too?
Specifically, now I can tell C2 that the maximum trade size must be $5K. However, this will be evaluated per signal (at least the last time that I checked it was done in this way). That doesn't make sense: The vendor can overrule my restriction by adding in multiple legs of $5K each, giving me a position of e.g. $30K. As Pete says, I cannot know this in advance, because the vendor may have never done that before. So I think that at least this feature should be changed such that the subscriber can specify a maximum position size in his account.
This is not the same as what I suggested in my earlier post. I still agree with that too, because the statistics of such a system will be more appropriate for the subscriber than if the subscriber specifies his own private maximum position size.
Currently a vendor can specify in advance that his system will be for stocks only, or for futures only, etc. This is also some kind of voluntary agreement about the trades that will be permitted. Why not have the possibility for a similar voluntary agreement about the maximum position size? (I assume that C2 will not allow a "stocks only" system to buy futures; am I wrong?).
Note that vendors will still be able to create any system that they want: They can just specify "no maximum position size". |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (12:16) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/07/06 (12:15) I agree with you that subscribers will still have to do their homework and that C2 can't think for them. But don't you think that C2 can make their task a little easier by displaying more statistics about the trading style? It already shows Annualized return, Max draw down, P/L per unit, and average time per trade; why not something like the maximum position size?
...
See entire
Oops! Sorry for posting it twice (with a little correction the second time). I hoped it would overwrite the first one. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (12:48) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/07/06 (12:14) I agree with you that subscribers will still have to do their homework and that C2 can't think for them. But C2 don't you think that C2 can make their task a little easier by displaying more statistics about the trading style? It already shows Annualized return, Max draw down, P/L per unit, and average time per trade; why not something like the maximum position size?
...
See entire
Yes, I agree. See:
System Details: E-WOLF EMINI
This guy went from 1 lots to 522 lots....
If he did this this with managed real
money he'd be getting hunted down by
his clients.
And C2's strange P/L per unit calcs
show him @ $106 per unit with a $50,000 loss....
Something can be done to reward those who act
like they are trading real money and punish those
who don't.
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Science Trader ( C2 Score: 266) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (13:17) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/07/06 (12:14) I agree with you that subscribers will still have to do their homework and that C2 can't think for them. But C2 don't you think that C2 can make their task a little easier by displaying more statistics about the trading style? It already shows Annualized return, Max draw down, P/L per unit, and average time per trade; why not something like the maximum position size?
...
See entire
It would be helpful if C2 shows a graph (similar to the equity curve) that shows the leverage the vendor uses at any point in time. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (18:40) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pete * of 12/07/06 (7:55) "If you don't have any answers about risks from a system vendor you must answer on the questions yourself. "
...
See entire
That is why the reviews are there for. If someone reviews that don't autotrade this system, there may be a reason stated as well. You are free to shop some other system and the system vendor is free to do what is best in his own view. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (18:49) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/07/06 (18:40) That is why the reviews are there for. If someone reviews that don't autotrade this system, there may be a reason state...
See entire
> That is why the reviews are there for. If someone reviews that don't autotrade this system, there may be a reason stated as well. You are free to shop some other system and the system vendor is free to do what is best in his own view.
Of course....this is the view of someone who has bankrupted 5 of the
6 systems he's vended. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (19:09) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Science Trader of 12/07/06 (13:17) It would be helpful if C2 shows a graph (similar to the equity curve) that shows the leverage the vendor uses at any point in time.
I think auto-trading is invaluable for system vendors to create their own real-money track record where the system vendor may take larger risks in his own personal account. It should not be relied upon by subscribers to manage their own money. They should instead use a managed-money account where risks are strictly enforced by contractual agreements and the courts. Another alternative is to invest in hedge funds with a trading style and strategy they are comfortable with. C2 systems can only be relied upon for elucidating the direction of the market movement (considering the price for which they are being offered). |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (20:14) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/07/06 (19:09) I think auto-trading is invaluable for system vendors to create their own real-money track record where the system vendo...
See entire
"It should not be relied upon by subscribers to manage their own money."
Sure. Not trading at all would 'solve' the problems too. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Lew Payne ( C2 Score: 911) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (20:57) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/07/06 (19:09) I think auto-trading is invaluable for system vendors to create their own real-money track record where the system vendo...
See entire
"C2 systems can only be relied upon for elucidating the direction of the market movement (considering the price for which they are being offered). "
Really? Then why don't you point out a system on C2 which you would "rely upon for elucidating the direction of the market movement" - because I don't know of any system on here which reliably elucidates the direction of the market movement.
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Science Trader ( C2 Score: 266) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (21:08) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/07/06 (19:09) I think auto-trading is invaluable for system vendors to create their own real-money track record where the system vendo...
See entire
I think what you say here is inconsistent with the fact that you offer subscriptions yourselves. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Eu New ( C2 Score: 965) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (21:11) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pete * of 12/07/06 (7:55) "If you don't have any answers about risks from a system vendor you must answer on the questions yourself. "
...
See entire
2Pete * & Jules
I apologize, because I underestimate system vendors risks. Both of you have good point.
If we want to reduce unpredictable system vendor behavior you're correct.
First point is: Limitation of position size, by declared rules. (System vendor prohibited from opening of position more than declared by him/herself size)
Second point is: Max DD per trading capital. (If a system went over declared DD C2 will issue close orders as with margin call right now)
It might be call "system with known risk" Of course subscribers will be notified about any changes in the parameters as it's already done with subscription fees)
In the case probable loss per system is known by subscriber in advance and it's forced by C2.
Actually there is nothing new it's systematic trading. New thing is that C2 might stay on guard of subscribers interests.
Looking at EclipseFX before Nov, could you have determined that the vendor would hold a losing position into this kind of severe drawdown?
You don't need to guess about system vendor minds for draft estimation of your risks.
E.g. As I understand the system doesn't/didn't use stop losses:
- Your probable loss is margin call issued by your broker.
- Probability of the loss is complex, but you don't need to use a lot of math for draft opinion.
E.g. forex system trades one pair without stops. Your margin call is 50% from trading capital.
Expected news that might reflect the pair are released four times per your and every news can ruin the system (no stop losses)
We expect that the system has no idea about expected news. (50/50)
Probability that you have margin call on one of the news is 93.75%. Probability that you'll be b/e after one year - 6.25%.(if the systems makes 100% of course)
I hope you get the idea. I'm not familiar with forex and your estimation might be more complicated and use different points. Also I saw 18 reds in a row in casino ;)
If you have all the buzz words as hedge/diversification/stop loses/astrology/predictability of market, just ask what is expected/known DD and what system vendor is going to do after reaching it.
Finally it's your money and you may ask ;)
Eu
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (21:41) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Eu New of 12/07/06 (21:11) 2Pete * & Jules
I apologize, because I underestimate system vendors risks. Both of you have good point.
If we want to reduce unpredictable system vendor behavior you're correct....
See entire
I'm glad that you are with us on this, Eu. You're right, it was about the "vendor risk", not other forms of risk.
Regarding your second point, I agree that estimation of risk is a complicated matter and that it involves more than looking to the equity curve or some simulation statistics. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (21:43) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Science Trader of 12/07/06 (21:08) I think what you say here is inconsistent with the fact that you offer subscriptions yourselves.
Yes, but I do not offer a opinion of what stop losses to use.
Perry Kaufman says when he states for trend following approach :
"Stop losses are counterproductive. Say you read somewhere that you should only risk 1% of your trading capital on any given trade and you have $25,000 in trading capital. You've calculated that you can only risk ù250 on a trade. You're arbitrarily putting in a number that's convenient to you but has nothing to do with the market. When you look at the price fluctuations of a particular market, you'll notice that the fluctuations are close to the random distribution that you would associate with noise. With that information, you can predict that a $250 stop-loss will be hit twice as often as a $500 stop-loss, which in turn, will be hit twice as often as a $1,000 stop-loss. So it comes down to the closer you set your stop-loss, the more often it's going to be hit. This has very little to do with your trading system. Setting small stop-loss almost guarantees that you're going to be stopped out.
The safest thing to do is to first test your system without any stop-loss
method superimposed on it. Basically, look at the natural risk in your
system. Your system should go long when market goes up and go short when market declines. Accept the risk of the system and plan for it, or plan for twice as much risk or three times as much risk and then trade it that way.
The system itself does some sort of natural adjusting to market events. If you try to put a stop loss on top of a system, you end up getting stopped out when the system itself still says the trend is up."
So then you're faced with a dilemma. Of either trusting the signal or trying to get back in. That's not a normal trading signal because the system has already given you a trend signal, and if you decide to get back in, you then have to decide how to do so. If you stay out, you may miss an opportunity.
If you get back in, then there was no reason to get out. Either way you're
no longer performing according to your system profile, and you can no longer expect the results generated during testing."
"Q : Is there any situation where a stop-loss method might make a difference?
Perry Kauffman : My experience indicates that when you use a stop losses you don't help the system; The only stop-losses that ever seem to work in testing are the ones that get you out of a catastrophic move.
"
So it seems that Perry Kaufman agree with Gallagher or vice-versa on this question, that a stop-loss is better to be not a simple $ or % money
management stop-loss but rather, if needed, a one that is pertinent to both the market breath/noise/ direction and the system logic.
Now the psychological- emotional impact on the trader's choices to
risk/reward, losses and drawdown remain the main question.
It seems that there is no general answer, nor general path to a unique
personal goal and constraints; only a personal one which each one has to make for themselves.
I agree that a complete system should also have provisions for risk control (such as stop-loss criteria) & money management (such as strategies for scaling) but for an "always-in" system that is historically safer than buy and hold (based on backtested and forward-tested, historical data) no additional stops or checks should be required (although they could be used if so desired.)
A system/method does not have to have stop-loss rules if it is designed to be "always-in" the market, i.e., it reverses its position if its stop levels are violated. But there-in lies the problem.
It is rarely a good idea to reverse a position from long to short or vice versa. For eg., when you initiate a position in a stock, the stock should meet the criteria that you have concluded has predictive value. If the position goes against you, the odds are slim that all of these conditions have reversed.
Therefore it is best to close out the position and look for another stock that meets your criteria instead of trying to get even with the loser.
So, the compromise in such a case would involve reducing the positions which would be the same as raising the stop levels or hedging with options or fully exiting the position and wait for the conditions to reverse to take another position in the opposite direction.
ABOUT STOP-LOSS ORDERS: A MESSAGE-BOARD CONVERSATION
I have read/heard that sometimes the retail trader's stop-loss and target
orders can be seen by other traders (though not at-home traders). Is this true?
As a result, your positions can be stopped out by market makers, I assume. Is this a situation only from the "old days," or is it present day also? If so, is it isolated to a few markets or most in general? I'd think electronic markets are somewhat invisible. Just curious--Trader Guy 02
I sit with 100 other professional traders, and each and every one also speaks of a "they" out there who is responsible for the losses, stops, and so on -- " they" this, "they" that, all day long.--Rhymeswithorang
I have to agree with you both. For 30 years, "we" have been "they" -- and we don't see anything! Many stops are held by the retail broker, so they "see" them. For insight into how market makers may use what they "see," check this out for some insight: http://www.stocktrading.com/wsjknight1.shtml
Since the retail trader only accounts for single-digit percentage volume on the exchanges, I wouldn't worry too much about market makers or specialists. On the other hand, we teach our people to only use alerts and never place stop orders (for several reasons).
Could you please elaborate on these reasons? -- Math_Wiz
The primary reason I don't use actual stop orders is that I want to "see" what the market is doing when the alert goes off. Was it a bad print, was it a negotiated trade that generally bounces back, was it a trade-through (when a stock prints at a price that is outside the quoted bid/offer prices)? Is it news related, sector related, disaster related-is there another stock that I should buy or sell to hedge vs. cover a losing trade? This is all part of tape reading. Stop orders are generally best used only by investors who cannot sit and watch the market all day. Hope this helps. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/07/06 (23:22) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/07/06 (21:43) Yes, but I do not offer a opinion of what stop losses to use.
Perry Kaufman says when he states for trend following approach :
...
See entire
"Yes, but I do not offer a opinion of what stop losses to use. "
Neither did anyone of the previous posters.
"The only stop-losses that ever seem to work in testing are the ones that get you out of a catastrophic move."
Which is exactly what started the discussion.
BTW, I didn't say that every vendor should use stop losses. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pete * |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/08/06 (8:42) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/07/06 (18:40) That is why the reviews are there for. If someone reviews that don't autotrade this system, there may be a reason state...
See entire
System reviews only tell you about the past and the point I was trying to convey is that the future is unpredictable. Just because vendor X has never done (insert something objectionable here) in the past 12 months doesnt mean he wont suddenly do it out of the blue today.
Without a C2 enforced mechanism any vendor is free to go for a Hail Mary trade when faced with a major unrealized loss in an attempt to save the equity curve or win rate of the system.
After all its just play money for system vendors and if it doesn't work out they can just close the system and start another one. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pete * |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/08/06 (8:51) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Eu New of 12/07/06 (21:11) 2Pete * & Jules
I apologize, because I underestimate system vendors risks. Both of you have good point.
If we want to reduce unpredictable system vendor behavior you're correct....
See entire
I wrote: "Looking at EclipseFX before Nov, could you have determined that the vendor would hold a losing position into this kind of severe drawdown? "
Eu wrote: "You don't need to guess about system vendor minds for draft estimation of your risks. "
Actually if you read the system description for the system in question the vendor lists expected drawdown:
"The EclipseFX will scale into entries. With this said, please figure your 1 lot amount as outlined below:
50% CASH= 1 lot: $20,000 account: 1 lot =$10,000. Expectations: 15-20%/month return, 50+% drawdown.
25% CASH= 1 lot: $40,000 account: 1 lot=$10,000. Expectations: 7-10%/month return, 40+% drawdown.
10% CASH= 1 lot: $100,000 account: 1 lot=$10,000. Expectations: SIMILAR TO C2 posted returns."
Look at the drawdown expected for 25% cash and then what is said about the drawdown expected for 10% cash as the vendor does for C2 trading (using much less leverage). So much for that.
While I appreciate your attempt to quantify risk, your analysis seems very generic just based on Forex trading in general.
Looknig at trading one pair without stops is not very applicable to the C2 environment (where vendors can put on as many simultaneous trades as they like) and certainly not to the trading style of EclipseFX. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/08/06 (10:53) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/07/06 (21:43) Yes, but I do not offer a opinion of what stop losses to use.
Perry Kaufman says when he states for trend following approach :
...
See entire
"Stop orders are generally best used only by investors who cannot sit and watch the market all day. Hope this helps."
I suspect this applies to the vast majority of C2 subscribers....i.e. they are subscribers here *because* they can't watch the market all day.....
I would add stops should be used by traders with little or no self discipline (this clearly applies to Pal himself) and many other vendors who have destroyed their own accounts as well as their subscriber's accounts.
I agree if you can watch the market 24-7 AND you can pull the trigger on your exits 100% of the time, then you may not need stops.
>Perry Kaufman says when he states for trend following approach :
"Stop losses are counterproductive. Say you read somewhere that you should only risk 1%...."
How many systems on C2 are trend following? The system in question here was scalping < $100 per trade on 15 of the last 25 trades. So say Pal is trying to learn how to trade and he reads somewhere (Perry Kaufman) that "Stop losses are counterproductive". What does this have to do with this question? Nada. Moreover, I suggest you test your systems yourself. I've tested 100's (maybe 1000's) of systems where stop losses *have* improved performance. Sure it's stupid to just say I'll risk 1% or $100 or some number pulled out of a hat, but if a system developer tests enough data he can come up with a smart stop that will improve overall performance AND reduce risk. The bottom line here is that many, maybe most systems on C2 that do well for a time, eventually fall victim to a fatal drawdown. Indeed *all* of Pal's systems have had fatal drawdowns.
Last, and here is what I don't get: if you are a vendor on C2 why are you here? To prove to the world you can turn 100K into 100M paper trading? Or to sell subscriptions? I would guess the vast majority of subscribers would prefer to avoid $100-200-300K drawdowns...but I'm only guessing. If your subscribers want this why wouldn't a vendor try to do this? And Pal, if you can avoid $100K drawdowns without using stops, why haven't any of your systems done that? Enough theory, look at the reality of your own track record. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/08/06 (11:11) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pete * of 12/08/06 (8:42) System reviews only tell you about the past and the point I was trying to convey is that the future is unpredictable. Just because vendor X has never done (insert something objectionable here) in the past 12 months doesnt mean he wont suddenly do it out of the blue today....
See entire
>Without a C2 enforced mechanism any vendor is free to go for a Hail Mary trade when faced with a major unrealized loss in an attempt to save the equity curve or win rate of the system.
C2 enforced mechanism is user driven in the form of reviews. Subscribers should pay a close attention to it.
>After all its just play money for system vendors and if it doesn't work out they can just close the system and start another one.
CTA’s are always closing programs. It is nothing new. Markets are like that. When the system undergoes a huge drawdown, it sheds its subscribers who entered at the top, and then the markets take off along with the track record for the system and new subscribers pour in. Markets are like that. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pete * |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/08/06 (11:17) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/08/06 (11:11) >Without a C2 enforced mechanism any vendor is free to go for a Hail Mary trade when faced with a major unrealized loss in an attempt to save the equity curve or win rate of the system....
See entire
>C2 enforced mechanism is user driven in the form of reviews. Subscribers should pay a close attention to it.
Understood but that only works if the vendor has pulled the stunt in the past (and if someone has bothered to write a negative review because of it).
There has to be a first time and for the customers at that time the fact that they can be the first one to write a negative review to expose the bad practices is little comfort. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/08/06 (11:38) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pete * of 12/08/06 (11:17) >C2 enforced mechanism is user driven in the form of reviews. Subscribers should pay a close attention to it.
Understood but that only works if the vendor has pulled the stunt in the past (and if someone has bothered to write a negative review because of it)....
See entire
>There has to be a first time and for the customers at that time the fact that they can be the first one to write a negative review to expose the bad practices is little comfort.
That is why I suggested a criteria to evaluate the quality of a system, but received a very cold response. It was so cold that I felt that I was in the north pole. Using that criteria, one would've avoided trading that system in the first place. MK are you listening. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. Nobody listens to me, except kids and animals. Oh well... Check this out http://www.tacticalnet.com/cgi-bin/t2.exe/VolatiltiyPaper.htm
BTW thanks for listening.. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/08/06 (13:39) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 12/08/06 (10:53) "Stop orders are generally best used only by investors who cannot sit and watch the market all day. Hope this helps."
...
See entire
"I suspect this applies to the vast majority of C2 subscribers....i.e. they are subscribers here *because* they can't watch the market all day....."
Exactly. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/08/06 (19:52) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/08/06 (11:38) >There has to be a first time and for the customers at that time the fact that they can be the first one to write a negative review to expose the bad practices is little comfort....
See entire
ps: Also, positions should be taken after one "knows" where the top or bottom is, as opposed to acting on "hope", "guess" or "feel" for the top or bottom in a given time-frame. It is only on this basis that one can progress to further discoveries. The purpose of "diversification" is to prevent the need to watch the markets all day long. In this circumstances, stop losses are completely counter-productive. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Eu New ( C2 Score: 965) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/09/06 (14:55) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/07/06 (21:41) I'm glad that you are with us on this, Eu. You're right, it was about the "vendor risk", not other forms of risk....
See entire
Jules
I'm glad that you are with us on this
After your and Pete* clarifications - yes. I found the idea very interesting as limitation of unpredictability of system vendors actions in advance. More interesting that if it'll be implemented on C2 it'll limit only "predictable" system vendors that will use it. Gambling guys won't use the future at all lol
Pete*
Actually if you read the system description for the system in question the vendor lists expected drawdown:
I did it and I laughed at "Expectations: SIMILAR TO C2 posted returns.". It's very good advertising and hiding from declared DDs behind C2's stats.
Look at the drawdown expected for 25% cash
My internal question even before the discussion was very simple: Declared DDs was huge. Why at last point they didn't declare it and refer to C2? After the point I stop looking to the system at all.
While I appreciate your attempt to quantify risk, your analysis seems very generic just based on Forex trading in general.
Sorry, it wasn't quantification of risk for the particular system, it was half of joke. What I was trying to show is pessimistic draft attempt for estimation of risks that doesn't require a lot of math.
You're right it's very generic, but you can use it for any instrument, not only for forex. If you don't like probability theory you can use taro cards. In general it doesn't matter. ;)
What you should have as subscriber (if system vendor isn't able provide it) it's an action plan when all odds against you or more simplified at which point of yourl oss you'll exit from the game. It's main question that you have to answer yourself before start risking of even 1c ;)
Eu
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/09/06 (16:46) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pete * of 12/08/06 (8:51) I wrote: "Looking at EclipseFX before Nov, could you have determined that the vendor would hold a losing position into this kind of severe drawdown? "
...
See entire
The only limitation I find is the inability of MK to use an objective criteria to evaluate the quality of a system and hence in the ranking of systems/methods at C2. That is the root cause of all the problems. Subscribers are being lured to subscribe to a system based on how good the "false" equity curve of the system looks like. Sure it gets a lot of subscription commission money to C2, but at the expense of subscribers accounts. Why should he care, right? He gets his commissions on the subscription money that pays his bills. Subscribers who are lured into subscribing to such systems will continue to lose their shirts, thanks to C2.
Investment administrators should not be concerned with the volatility of a proven, robust trading system. Rather, they should seriously question those astonishingly large numbers of systems trading programs that are marketed touting potential gain without proportional volatility! Doesn't that make more sense? If you expect potential benefit without accompanying relative risk, you believe you can get something for nothing--an alarmingly dangerous trap - Dr. David Druz.
"You can't eat your cake and have it, too." - Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge." Thus we should reject mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and reject skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible). |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Index ( C2 Score: 975) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (8:44) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/09/06 (16:46) The only limitation I find is the inability of MK to use an objective criteria to evaluate the quality of a system and h...
See entire
"The only limitation I find is the inability of MK to use an objective criteria to evaluate the quality of a system and hence in the ranking of systems/methods at C2"
Actually, C2 is one of the very few places where you can hold a system to the fire. The real problem is that new traders become convinced of easy pickings. No amount of statistical facts will stop these lemmings. The Pied Piper is more the philosophy of Riches through Leveraged Trading, more than anything else.
European countries sacked the empires of the New World looking for gold. Many of those who became rich during the California and Klondike gold rushes were the proprietors selling horrendously-overpriced supplies to the fatted sheep who burst into these previously-unknown gold fields.
Trading-system vendors come and go, but the dream of fast riches has been with us since before King Midas soiled his first diaper... |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (15:53) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/09/06 (16:46) The only limitation I find is the inability of MK to use an objective criteria to evaluate the quality of a system and h...
See entire
"Investment administrators should not be concerned with the volatility of a proven, robust trading system. Rather, they should seriously question those astonishingly large numbers of systems trading programs that are marketed touting potential gain without proportional volatility! Doesn't that make more sense? If you expect potential benefit without accompanying relative risk, you believe you can get something for nothing--an alarmingly dangerous trap - Dr. David Druz."
You have a lot of nerve quoting Druz as a means to rationalize your own
"volatility". You'll notice Druz's 20+ year track record rarely has drawdowns even a fraction of what each and every one one of your systems has had in just the last few months:
http://www.tacticalnet.com/cgi-bin/t2.exe/TacticalFuturesComposite.htm
Moreover, you talk about how useless stops are. Druz's mentor Ed Seykota:
http://www.turtletrader.com/trader-druz.html
when asked "what are the elements of good trading":
Seykota said: 1) "cut your losses, cut your losses, cut your losses."
and 2) "I am bullish the instant my buy stop is hit and I stay bullish until my ***sell stop*** is hit....."
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (16:28) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Index of 12/10/06 (8:44) "The only limitation I find is the inability of MK to use an objective criteria to evaluate the quality of a system and hence in the ranking of systems/methods at C2"
...
See entire
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (16:30) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/10/06 (16:28) >Actually, C2 is one of the very few places where you can hold a system to the fire.
I disagree. It is one of the very few places where subscribers are lured just as fire-flies are lured to the fire. Only the closed equity equity curve shows the true picture of a system. eg:
...
See entire
pss: I mean when it comes to trading... |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (18:55) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/10/06 (16:28) >Actually, C2 is one of the very few places where you can hold a system to the fire.
I disagree. It is one of the very few places where subscribers are lured just as fire-flies are lured to the fire. Only the closed equity equity curve shows the true picture of a system. eg:
...
See entire
"Only the closed equity equity curve shows the true picture of a system. eg:"
I looked at those sites and I see nothing about closed versus open equity curves.
I think that, if the equity curves are changed, they should rather be changed in the opposite direction: Intraday high and low should also be shown.
Showing the closed equity curve does not solve the problem that we discuss in this thread, the 'tragedy' of EclipseFX. The subscriber was receiving margin calls while the trades were still open. This would not be visible in the closed curve. How does that help? |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (19:36) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/10/06 (16:28) >Actually, C2 is one of the very few places where you can hold a system to the fire.
I disagree. It is one of the very few places where subscribers are lured just as fire-flies are lured to the fire. Only the closed equity equity curve shows the true picture of a system. eg:
...
See entire
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (20:06) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/10/06 (18:55) "Only the closed equity equity curve shows the true picture of a system. eg:"
I looked at those sites and I see nothing about closed versus open equity curves....
See entire
>I looked at those sites and I see nothing about closed versus open equity curves.
So you think they are open equity curves. Are you that gullible?
>I think that, if the equity curves are changed, they should rather be changed in the opposite direction: Intraday high and low should also be shown.
There is no evidence of the intraday highs and lows unless the position is exited at those prices.
>Showing the closed equity curve does not solve the problem that we discuss in this thread, the 'tragedy' of EclipseFX.
The tragedy of EclipseFX is the direct result of the misleading "false" equity curve at C2 which led subscribers to believe that they can get something (high returns) for nothing (low volatility). This perception is a dangerous trap. Instead an objective criteria to evaluate the quality of the system and hence a ranking system for methods/systems should be developed which would've prevented subscribers from trading this system in the first place.
>The subscriber was receiving margin calls while the trades were still open. This would not be visible in the closed curve. How does that help?
Margin calls depends on a lot of variables: subscribers money-mangement practices, his equity, religiously following the systems, i.e, discipline, too many positions open, overleveraging, margins raised by the exchange due to increased volatility of the instrument traded etc., Margin calls by itself is is not a tragedy. It may mean that the trader is trying to coax more output from the motor than what it is designed for. "Smarts and talent are like a motor's horsepower, but that the motor's output depends on rationality. A lot of people start out with a 400-horsepower motor but only get 100 horsepower of output. It's way better to have a 200-horsepower motor and get it all into output." - WB
Only when the position is exited the drawdown is created. This is clearly shown in the closed equity curve. Drawdown represents the realized losses in a closed equity curve and represents imaginary losses in an open equity curve. With proper money-management one
should be able to sit through these imaginary losses with or without margin calls. The real tragedy is the perception that one can get something for nothing, i.e., one can eat their cake and have it too precipitated by a false theory of concepts..
ps: Irrationalism leads the intellectuals to discard the possibility of
independence (of the reality orientation) in favor or the public good, which
leads them to conclude that a moral system is evil. Thereafter, however
scandalously they drop context, rewrite history, or contradict themselves, they feel no shame; so long as they are for the public good, they feel noble. Their epistemology, in short, permits them to manipulate the data as they choose - to reach any conclusions they like in regard to any matter of fact; and their ethics (taught by their university) programs them to reach only opposite conclusions. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Bundle Trader ( C2 Score: 967) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (20:18) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/10/06 (20:06) >I looked at those sites and I see nothing about closed versus open equity curves.
So you think they are open equity curves. Are you that gullible?
...
See entire
So you think they are open equity curves. Are you that gullible?
Palsun,
Those returns are computed using CFTC mandated methods (they are required to be).
As such, they include all open and closed equity. They are simple changes in NAV over the represented period. Here is an example spreadsheet using approved calculations (direct from the NFA website): http://www.nfa.futures.org/compliance/samplePerformanceGuide.xls
Now, that isn't the only way to calculate returns, but all methods are required to take into account both open and closed equity.
Once again, you seem to have some very peculiar ideas about this whole "closed-equity only curve".
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (20:46) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Bundle Trader of 12/10/06 (20:18)
So you think they are open equity curves. Are you that gullible?
Palsun,
Those returns are computed using CFTC mandated methods (they are required to be)....
See entire
It clearly states that this guide "may" be used by firms when they are calculating returns and drawdown figures in their Performance Capsule. NFA does not promote one method for determining rate of return, this Guide should only be used as one tool when completing your Performance Capsule. Notice the word "may" in quotes in the above paragraph.
Are you gullible too?
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (21:20) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/10/06 (20:46) It clearly states that this guide "may" be used by firms when they are calculating returns and drawdown figures in their Performance Capsule. NFA does not promote one method for determining rate of return, this Guide should only be used as one tool when completing your Performance Capsule. Notice the word "may" in quotes in the above paragraph....
See entire
> Are you gullible too?
You are arrogant, condescending, AND you don't know
know what you are talking about. Call any CTA and learn
The Truth first hand..... Indeed, open an account (instead
of paper trading) and see if your broker only counts "closed trades" in determining your balance. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (22:10) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/10/06 (20:06) >I looked at those sites and I see nothing about closed versus open equity curves.
So you think they are open equity curves. Are you that gullible?
...
See entire
"So you think they are open equity curves. Are you that gullible?"
Are you this bad in reading? I didn't say that they were open, I said that those two pages contain no information about whether they are open or closed. So they are irrelevant.
"There is no evidence of the intraday highs and lows unless the position is exited at those prices."
You must have some twisted idea about 'evidence' if you believe this.
"Only when the position is exited the drawdown is created. This is clearly shown in the closed equity curve."
I guess you haven't even looked at the equity curve or the trades of this system? The closed curve would show the almost the same tragedy, only later. So I still don't see how it would help. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (22:24) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/10/06 (22:10) "So you think they are open equity curves. Are you that gullible?"
Are you this bad in reading? I didn't say that they were open, I said that those two pages contain no information about whether they are open or closed. So they are irrelevant....
See entire
Are you this bad in reading? I didn't say that they were open, I said that those two pages contain no information about whether they are open or closed. So they are irrelevant.
You did not catch the drift of my question.
>You must have some twisted idea about 'evidence' if you believe this.
This is exactly what a psychopath says.
>I guess you haven't even looked at the equity curve or the trades of this system? The closed curve would show the almost the same tragedy, only later. So I still don't see how it would help.
Like I said, one should not have traded this system in the first place. Please learn to read properly. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Index ( C2 Score: 975) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (22:52) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/10/06 (16:28) >Actually, C2 is one of the very few places where you can hold a system to the fire.
I disagree. It is one of the very few places where subscribers are lured just as fire-flies are lured to the fire. Only the closed equity equity curve shows the true picture of a system. eg:
...
See entire
C2 is absolutely not one of the few places are lured. Futures mag, Tech Sn of S&C, huge numbers of newsletters and vendors, spam emails, postal mailings, Google ads, Ebay ads, click ads, and a thousand other forms are out there trying to draw them in with promises of easy riches. Open the eyes.
C2 is one of the very few that has a real-world testing facility. The others try to "Baffle 'em with B.S." and there is zero ways to penetrate the fakery. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (23:06) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Index of 12/10/06 (22:52) C2 is absolutely not one of the few places are lured. Futures mag, Tech Sn of S&C, huge numbers of newsletters and vendors, spam emails, postal mailings, Google ads, Ebay ads, click ads, and a thousand other forms are out there trying to draw them in with promises of easy riches. Open the eyes....
See entire
>C2 is absolutely not one of the few places are lured.
Ok. C2 is one of the multitude of places where subscribers are lured to the fire. But C2 is the best in doing that.
>C2 is one of the very few that has a real-world testing facility. The others try to "Baffle 'em with B.S." and there is zero ways to penetrate the fakery.
Agree. Kudos to Mk for that. I sincerely appreciate most of what is being done at C2. I want C2 to be successful along with the subscribers. It is just that my views and MK's views seem to differ or maybe we have a hard time understanding each other.
ps: The viewer/subscriber is doomed forever to switch from system to system in search of that ideal system to trade. A honest but nonphilosophical man can see that C2 is now on the brink of chaos and even suicide, but he will not know how to answer the people telling him that the failure stems not from the nature of altruism (public good), but from its perversion, from wrong tactics or wrong leaders. He cannot identify the opposite principles at work here or even know that the present setup is a mixture of opposites. If a man understands only that "Something is wrong," he is vulnerable to those who clamor that what is wrong is that there is too much freedom at C2. He will not know why freedom is essential to prosperity, or what it has to do with man's mind, or the cause of wealth. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Bundle Trader ( C2 Score: 967) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (23:33) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/10/06 (20:46) It clearly states that this guide "may" be used by firms when they are calculating returns and drawdown figures in their Performance Capsule. NFA does not promote one method for determining rate of return, this Guide should only be used as one tool when completing your Performance Capsule. Notice the word "may" in quotes in the above paragraph....
See entire
No, I am not gullible. I don't have that luxury.
Also, I am a registered CTA. I gave you an example of an approved method of calculating returns.. Also, I stated that it was an example and there were other options available.
I also informed you (since I knew where you would head with this ...) that ALL methods must include open and closed equity. That is an absolute. The options deal with how to handle fees, withdrawls, deposits, composite returns, etc. There is no available option, for very obvious reasons, to include only closed-trade equity.
Your response is very disheartening. I had just assumed you were misinforned. It is now apparent you are WILLFULLY misinforned, and you are determined to keep it that way.
The person you used as an inspiration does not calculate returrns the way you assumed they did. They use stop-losses, while you claim their use is ill-advised (will you now ignore everything you're demonstrably wrong on and focus on that last sentance?).
You are becoming sort of a running joke here. At some point it's okay to admit you're wrong, and perhaps offer something real to discussions.
Just a thought. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (23:40) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Bundle Trader of 12/10/06 (23:33)
No, I am not gullible. I don't have that luxury.
Also, I am a registered CTA. I gave you an example of an approved method of calculating returns.. Also, I stated that it was an example and there were other options available....
See entire
I get it. You not just gullible, just another psychopath. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (23:48) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/10/06 (23:40) I get it. You not just gullible, just another psychopath.
Lol! Man if anyone will be the first person banned from posting it's this nutso -- or possibly me.
You were -- as we say on the internet -- OWNED. Your arguments were shown for false crap. Your assumptions were proven invalid.
Your response? "you're a psycopath".
I've told you this before and I'll say it again. MORE! You're consistantly the best entertainment here.
*hold up flaming lighter*
Encore! |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (23:50) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/10/06 (23:40) I get it. You not just gullible, just another psychopath.
> You not just gullible, just *another* psychopath.
When everyone is crazy but you.......
I bet you know more than your share of psychopaths eh Pal? |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (23:50) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/10/06 (23:40) I get it. You not just gullible, just another psychopath.
> You not just gullible, just *another* psychopath.
When everyone is crazy but you.......
I bet you know more than your share of psychopaths eh Pal? |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/10/06 (23:52) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/10/06 (23:48) Lol! Man if anyone will be the first person banned from posting it's this nutso -- or possibly me.
You were -- as we say on the internet -- OWNED. Your arguments were shown for false crap. Your assumptions were proven invalid....
See entire
Another nutso?. Keep it up, you will keep loosing. They called me peculiar and twisted. I called them a psychopath in return and rightly so. That is fair game. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Bundle Trader ( C2 Score: 967) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (0:04) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/10/06 (23:52) Another nutso?. Keep it up, you will keep loosing. They called me peculiar and twisted. I called them a psychopath in return and rightly so. That is fair game.
I've been nothing but polite and civil.
I said you had peculiar ideas about closed-trade equity. Point of fact, they are peculiar: the CFTC has regulations specifically designed to not allow such misleading reporting.
I pointed out your error in postulating that the CTA you referenced was including closed-only equity.
If for whatever personal reason you feel the above makes me a "psychopath", or was somehow an attack on you, that is outside my control.
I have once again tried to be constructive to responding to you. Again, you would rather resort to ad hominem attacks rather than address the facts.
I certainly understand how the "running joke" comment could be constured an attack on you. I do apologize for it, but I would like to also point out it is was made due to your previous responses which were much like the one I am adressing here.
You seem like an intelligent person. Certainly you can grasp these concepts. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (0:09) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/10/06 (23:52) Another nutso?. Keep it up, you will keep loosing. They called me peculiar and twisted. I called them a psychopath in return and rightly so. That is fair game.
Thanks =)
Also I've been wondering about the consipracy to bump your comments off of the front page chat area.
I think it was that "Jules" character, who is clearly a fake person (probably really MK? All those posts and positive reviews of systems ... amiright?)
Remember how he/she was talking to itself, for no other reason than to bump off your comments from chat?
I didn't get to see what it was they were bumping off, only your notice of it. What was it? |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (0:12) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Bundle Trader of 12/11/06 (0:04)
I've been nothing but polite and civil.
I said you had peculiar ideas about closed-trade equity. Point of fact, they are peculiar: the CFTC has regulations specifically designed to not allow such misleading reporting....
See entire
Ok. Lets keep this civil and polite.
>The CFTC has regulations specifically designed to not allow such misleading reporting.
You don't want this specifically because you do not want the truth represented. How is that misleading? You keep evading the fact that there is no evidence of a drawdown except when the positiions are exited. If CFTC or C2 or whoever is making the same mistake, that doesn't make it the truth.
>You seem like an intelligent person. Certainly you can grasp these concepts.
I could say the same thing to you. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Bundle Trader ( C2 Score: 967) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (0:32) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (0:12) Ok. Lets keep this civil and polite.
>The CFTC has regulations specifically designed to not allow such misleading reporting....
See entire
No, actually, that would be great for CTA's, although of course unethical reporting. I wouldn’t want to do so because it doesn’t represent a factual record of what happens to client equity on a day-to-day basis. Whether you know it or not, for some reason clients think the money in their account is theirs. They know on any given day, they can close their positions, AND their account. “Open” positions are their money as well. Any loss in “Open” positions is a direct hit on their pocket book.
The function of the CFTC is to protect investors, not those offering trading advise. If you don't know that simple fact, or think the CFTC is involved in some sort of conspiracy to demonize your peculiar (yes, peculiar by all standards) insistence on closed-equity only reporting, that would not meet the requirements of a reasonable thinker.
Again, you're not addressing the fact that what you thought (and indeed, insisted) was closed-equity only reporting (from the link you provided) is NOT that what you claimed. You then called people gullible for thinking it wasn't closed-equity only, and insulted them directly. Whatever past history you may have with them, they come out looking like champs so far.
There are several other issues there. Why would they be "gullible" for thinking it wasn't closed equity-only. Does that mean closed-equity only looks better? Of course it does. Thus your desire for such a measure. Further, why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that the equity graph you pointed to is not closed-equity only? You still have not acknowledged that fact.
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (0:35) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/11/06 (0:09) Thanks =)
Also I've been wondering about the consipracy to bump your comments off of the front page chat area.
...
See entire
Dr. Jules Ellis, I believe has a P.hd., in Psychology. I believe he was getting even with me for deleting his posts in my forum, just as Eu hinted. I have been noticing a change in his persoanlity in my private correspondences with him and also in the forums. Makes me shudder to think that he might be turning into a Dr. Robert Stadler? He has potential to be a good trader. Hate to see him to go in the wrong track.
It doesn't matter what was deleted. That is really not important. What is important however, is that tragedies like what happened with EcclipseFX be avoided in the future. I am just offering my point of view. It is also important that we be cool, civil and polite. It helps us in our trading, as trading is a reflection of our own personality. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Chris Morse |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (0:42) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (0:35) Dr. Jules Ellis, I believe has a P.hd., in Psychology. I believe he was getting even with me for deleting his posts in my forum, just as Eu hinted. I have been noticing a change in his persoanlity in my private correspondences with him and also in the forums. Makes me shudder to think that he might be turning into a Dr. Robert Stadler? He has potential to be a good trader. Hate to see him to go in the wrong track....
See entire
It is also important that we be cool, civil and polite.
Coming from someone who call other people gullible and psychopaths for disagreeing with him.
It helps us in our trading, as trading is a reflection of our own personality.
It does appears that your systems and trading is a reflection of your personality indeed... |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (0:45) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Bundle Trader of 12/11/06 (0:32) No, actually, that would be great for CTA's, although of course unethical reporting. I wouldn’t want to do so because i...
See entire
>They know on any given day, they can close their positions, AND their account. “Open” positions are their money as well. Any loss in “Open” positions is a direct hit on their pocket book.
It is their privelege to close their positions and their account, but that does not represent the true performance of the system.
>The function of the CFTC is to protect investors, not those offering trading advise. If you don't know that simple fact, or think the CFTC is involved in some sort of conspiracy to demonize your peculiar (yes, peculiar by all standards) insistence on closed-equity only reporting, that would not meet the requirements of a reasonable thinker.
To protect against whom. Is it the fault of the adviser that the investor does not have patience to sit through drawdowns?
>Again, you're not addressing the fact that what you thought (and indeed, insisted) was closed-equity only reporting (from the link you provided) is NOT that what you claimed. You then called people gullible for thinking it wasn't closed-equity only, and insulted them directly. Whatever past history you may have with them, they come out looking like champs so far.
That is your opinion. I beg to differ.
>There are several other issues there. Why would they be "gullible" for thinking it wasn't closed equity-only. Does that mean closed-equity only looks better? Of course it does. Thus your desire for such a measure. Further, why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that the equity graph you pointed to is not closed-equity only? You still have not acknowledged that fact.
I have acknowledged the fact that it is a closed-equity graph. You are the one who is not able to accept it and insist on adhering to crazy concepts. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Bundle Trader ( C2 Score: 967) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (0:46) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (0:12) Ok. Lets keep this civil and polite.
>The CFTC has regulations specifically designed to not allow such misleading reporting....
See entire
You don't want this specifically because you do not want the truth represented. How is that misleading? You keep evading the fact that there is no evidence of a drawdown except when the positiions are exited. If CFTC or C2 or whoever is making the same mistake, that doesn't make it the truth.
I should have addressed this paragraph as well.
We’ve already done this dance, but here we go:
If my account (OE+CE) is worth 100k today, and my account (OE+CE) is worth 90k tomorrow, I have suffered a 10k drawdown. By the same token, if my account (OE+CE) is worth 10k today, and is worth 100k tomorrow (OE+CE) I have made 10k.
This is money. It can be taken out on any given day. It is NOT subject to whatever program is being traded. The money doesn’t care what program is being traded, or how it is classified (OE, CE). It is money.
The evidence is that my account is valued at more or less than the day before. There can be no other evidence. If your bank only gave you an "official" balance on the 1st of each month, does that mean your balance only changes on those days? No, it means that is an arbitrary method the bank is applying to your account, but it has nothing to do with the value of your account. By your reasoning, any gain or loss in your bank account would only be "evidenced" on the 1st of each month. You're having a corporeal disconnect. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (0:50) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Bundle Trader of 12/11/06 (0:46) You don't want this specifically because you do not want the truth represented. How is that misleading? You keep evading the fact that there is no evidence of a drawdown except when the positiions are exited. If CFTC or C2 or whoever is making the same mistake, that doesn't make it the truth.
...
See entire
>If my account (OE+CE) is worth 100k today, and my account (OE+CE) is worth 90k tomorrow, I have suffered a 10k drawdown.
Wrong. It is not worth 90k until you exit all positions. You seem to have a wild imagination and you keep evading the simple truth. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Bundle Trader ( C2 Score: 967) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (0:53) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (0:45) >They know on any given day, they can close their positions, AND their account. “Open” positions are their money as well. Any loss in “Open” positions is a direct hit on their pocket book....
See entire
It is not a closed-equity graph. It is a graph outlining performance compiled per CFTC regulations, and includes all open and closed trade equity. If indeed you still can't admit that fact, that is quite disturbing.
Now, if you had a client you would understand this simple fact: they don't care two figs for your "system". They are risking their money, for a return of money. They don't care about your system. They care about money, as they should. They don't care that your system has a great "closed equity" rate. They care about their money, and it IS their money. If they had 100k today, and 90k tomorroow (even though your system GAINED 1 million $), that is the proof of their account.
We've been through this. Please open an account and trade with money, thank you. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (0:59) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Bundle Trader of 12/11/06 (0:53)
It is not a closed-equity graph. It is a graph outlining performance compiled per CFTC regulations, and includes all open and closed trade equity. If indeed you still can't admit that fact, that is quite disturbing....
See entire
>It is not a closed-equity graph. It is a graph outlining performance compiled per CFTC regulations, and includes all open and closed trade equity. If indeed you still can't admit that fact, that is quite disturbing.
Like I said, keep imagining. You do have a wild one which is very, very disturbing.
>Now, if you had a client you would understand this simple fact: they don't care two figs for your "system".
I dont care two figs about anything other than the truth.
>Please open an account and trade with money
You do the same, thankyou. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Bundle Trader ( C2 Score: 967) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (1:00) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (0:50) >If my account (OE+CE) is worth 100k today, and my account (OE+CE) is worth 90k tomorrow, I have suffered a 10k drawdown....
See entire
You're theory. I'm fact.
As a POINT OF FACT, it is worth 90k. As a POINT OF FACT, it is worth 10k less than before.
All accounts are MARKED TO MARKET on a daily basis. This determines their worth.
My fondest wish is to see you argue with an insurance adjustor. You bought a car. It cost 30k. It got stolen. They offer you 10k to replace it; market value. You argue that it is still worth 30k, because you haven't "realized a loss" since you haven't sold it. It doesn't matter that the market knows it's worth only 10k. YOU HAVEN'T SOLD IT, SO THERE IS NO LOSS!
Am I getting through? Every principle of common sense and economics argues against your position. You might as well be arguing that the Sun is really the moon. It is apparant to everyone your basic fallacies. Please rejoin rational discussions.
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (1:05) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Bundle Trader of 12/11/06 (1:00) You're theory. I'm fact.
As a POINT OF FACT, it is worth 90k. As a POINT OF FACT, it is worth 10k less than before....
See entire
>You bought a car. It cost 30k. It got stolen. They offer you 10k to replace it; market value. You argue that it is still worth 30k, because you haven't "realized a loss" since you haven't sold it. It doesn't matter that the market knows it's worth only 10k. YOU HAVEN'T SOLD IT, SO THERE IS NO LOSS!
You should really go back to school. I bought it at 30k. Now the market value is 10k and my car got stolen which is the same as selling it at 10k. I have realized a loss.
>Am I getting through? Every principle of common sense and economics argues against your position. You might as well be arguing that the Sun is really the moon. It is apparant to everyone your basic fallacies. Please rejoin rational discussions.
No further discussion is needed in view of your exploded fallacies. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (1:07) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (0:59) >It is not a closed-equity graph. It is a graph outlining performance compiled per CFTC regulations, and includes all open and closed trade equity. If indeed you still can't admit that fact, that is quite disturbing....
See entire
Heheheee.
See you can try to reason with a guy but a nut is a nut. Dustin I think you you made the CFTC rules very clear. I looked up the guy Palsun is referring to and he is a CTA in good standing, meaning he follows their rules for reporting. So Palsun just can't stand the fact that he is a lube job.
Palsun wants to bang his head against reality like a little baby. He quite reminds me of my little 2 year-old cousin. They both don't know what to do when things don't go their way. Surely reality must be wrong? They both know how things should *really* be, and are.
Rarely have I seen so much self-ownage in an internet thread.
Can we get another encore?
*lights lighter, waves it*
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Bundle Trader ( C2 Score: 967) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (1:11) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (1:05) >You bought a car. It cost 30k. It got stolen. They offer you 10k to replace it; market value. You argue that it is still worth 30k, because you haven't "realized a loss" since you haven't sold it. It doesn't matter that the market knows it's worth only 10k. YOU HAVEN'T SOLD IT, SO THERE IS NO LOSS!
...
See entire
According to you, you only realize the loss of you accept thier offer.
If you go around pretending you had a car worth 30k, you have no loss.
Right? |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (1:19) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Bundle Trader of 12/11/06 (1:11) According to you, you only realize the loss of you accept thier offer.
If you go around pretending you had a car worth 30k, you have no loss.
Right?
Sweet.
I've got an investment strategy for you Palsund: I will take your money and invest in cars.
Here's what happens. I take your 100k and invest in cars. I sell one car for 10k more than we bought for. We're now up 10k. The rest of the cars due to my poor management at buying are only worth 50k.
So I sit on all these cars, because I made you 10k right? Oh, but they keep going down in value. Good thing we're up 10k.
All the rest of our cars are now worth 30k. Is it my fault if you sell now? No, you don't have paitence. I'm TELLING YOU these old cars will go up in value, I've got it all worked out! But if they don't, well, be patient, because after all you're up 10k!
Man you're seriously nuts. More! |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (1:50) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Bundle Trader of 12/11/06 (1:11) According to you, you only realize the loss of you accept thier offer.
If you go around pretending you had a car worth 30k, you have no loss.
Right?
You have no idea of what a market value is. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (1:51) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/11/06 (1:19) Sweet.
I've got an investment strategy for you Palsund: I will take your money and invest in cars.
Here's what happens. I take your 100k and invest in cars. I sell one car for 10k more than we bought for. We're now up 10k. The rest of the cars due to my poor management at buying are only worth 50k....
See entire
What BS is this. Have you gone nuts man? |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (1:54) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Bundle Trader of 12/11/06 (0:53)
It is not a closed-equity graph. It is a graph outlining performance compiled per CFTC regulations, and includes all open and closed trade equity. If indeed you still can't admit that fact, that is quite disturbing....
See entire
> Now, if you had a client you would understand this simple fact: they don't care two figs for your "system". They are risking their money, for a return of money.
If he had ever had a futures account he would understand this. If you have $100K in open equity profits, and you want to withdraw it, you can! Conversely, try to withdraw $100K open losses: you can't. It's real money open or closed.
Clearly Pal has never traded anything but paper and words....but he's
here to "teach" us all how to trade.
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (2:08) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (1:51) What BS is this. Have you gone nuts man?
Ayn Rand called.
She'd like you to know that you have no productive acheivement, and your reasoning is crap. Total crap.
It's funny how you're down to replying with thoughtlessness. I mean, not to me, that's all my posts deserve.
But to people that bother to waste their breath being rational to you.
Are you terminally ill? Are you a bubble-boy? Or are do you just live in your mom's basement? Something has given you a strong disconnect with reality.
*Oh, nice picture of you on Ebay. If anyone wants it, private message me.*
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (2:18) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/11/06 (2:08)
Ayn Rand called.
She'd like you to know that you have no productive acheivement, and your reasoning is crap. Total crap....
See entire
ha ha ha I had a good laugh. Man, you are funny. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (2:18) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (1:50) You have no idea of what a market value is.
According to you, the market has no idea what market value is. That's the point we're all trying to get you to understand..
According to you, market value is set in stone at point of purchase, and any difference is only realized at point of sale.
Right?
According to you, how the market value changes in between is irrelevant. Correct me if I'm wrong.
No government or economic body on Earth would agree with you.
I suppose I await your one-line reply telling me how dumb I am for using economic measures approved by governments? |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (2:24) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (2:18) ha ha ha I had a good laugh. Man, you are funny.
Neither one of us have any place here.
You, because you are clearly mentally imbalanced.
Me, because I am the only one goofy enough to keep responding to you.
I can't help it though. I don't want to seem like you're not fun, you are. I swear I'll call you in the morning, even if though I don't respect you.
You must have no self esteem at all. So, I'm guessing your situation is mom's basement after all. I'll do a little digging and see what I come up with. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (2:26) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/11/06 (2:18) According to you, the market has no idea what market value is. That's the point we're all trying to get you to understand.....
See entire
Chart on each security is the composite of all of the thinking and information available. Chart skill involves interpreting the hieroglyphics (patterns) in order to discover investment opportunities without the need to know economics or business or financial analysis, because charts don't lie, just in case one needs a reminder.
Human knowledge is limited. At every stage of conceptual development, man has a specific cognitive context; he knows something, but not everything. Only on this basis of this delimited information can he gain new knowledge. It is important to relate a new idea to the full context-of seeking to reduce the idea to the data of sense and to integrate it with the rest of one's conclusions. Once these logical requirements have been met, the idea has been validated. If a man evades relevant data; or if, defaulting on the process of logic, he jumps from the data to an unwarranted conclusion; then of course his conclusion does not qualify as knowledge. But if he does consider all the available evidence (e.g., Chart on each security is the composite of all of the thinking and information available) and he does employ the method of logic in
assessing it, then his interpretation must be regarded as valid.
Any person in a free society can choose to brush reason aside but, since there is no agency to deflect the principle of justice, such persons do not set the long-range economic terms of the society. If a man succumbs to a buying spree in a bull market while ignoring a company's fundamentals-he loses out, and he continues to lose unless he learns a better approach. The system thus institutionalizes, though it cannot compel, respect for reality-and men's economic (and other) evaluations are set accordingly.
Market value, in essence, is the most rational assessment of a product that a free society can reach at a given time; and there is always a tendency for this assessment to approach the product's objective value, as people gain the requisite knowledge. In time, barring accidents, the two assessments coincide. The creative minority grasps the objective value of a good or service, then teaches it to the public, which is eventually lifted to the creators' level of development. "It is in this sense," that the free market is not ruled by the intellectual criteria of the majority, which prevail only at and for any given moment; the free market is ruled by those who are able to see and plan long- range-and the better the mind, the longer the range.
The dominant view today is that economic value (like every other kind) is not objective, but arbitrary. Monopolists or other "exploiters," subjectivists claim, charge any amount they feel like charging; landlords and bankers set rents or interest rates at whim; employers pay whatever niggardly wage their avarice decrees. Economic theory and history alike prove that a free market does not work this way; both theory and history make clear what happens in a free market to overchargers, underpayers, and other would-be fiat-mongers (they lose their customers, their workers, and ultimately their shirts).
Subjectivists, however, cannot heed any such proof; since they do not
acknowledge the possiblilty of consciousness preceiving existence, they cannot accept the possibility of the existence of an objective economy. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (2:28) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/11/06 (2:24)
Neither one of us have any place here.
You, because you are clearly mentally imbalanced.
Me, because I am the only one goofy enough to keep responding to you....
See entire
Man, you temper is fearsome. Take it easy. I respect you as an experienced trader. They are the only ones I deeply respect. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (2:30) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (2:28) Man, you temper is fearsome. Take it easy. I respect you as an experienced trader. They are the only ones I deeply respect.
ps: your analysis of MK's hot lists were truly awesome. No sarcasm here. I'm not kidding. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Emily Tansen |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (2:52) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (2:30) ps: your analysis of MK's hot lists were truly awesome. No sarcasm here. I'm not kidding.
Yes, it was accurate and appropriate.
Just as my review of your stated opinions is accurate and appropriate.
Unfortunately you see the one, but not the other. Everyone else does, however.
Well I see you're from Montreal, so the basement is probable. You're also half french, which explains alot more (sorry, American bias). I have been there once, beautiful city definately.
I still think you're demonstrably retarded. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (8:37) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Emily Tansen of 12/11/06 (0:09) Thanks =)
Also I've been wondering about the consipracy to bump your comments off of the front page chat area.
...
See entire
"Also I've been wondering about the consipracy to bump your comments off of the front page chat area. I think it was that "Jules" character, who is clearly a fake person (probably really MK? All those posts and positive reviews of systems ... amiright?) Remember how he/she was talking to itself, for no other reason than to bump off your comments from chat?"
Ridiculous. Are you joking, or what? I'm not MK. I'm not even a native speaker of English. I'm Dutch. I have to look up words like "gullible" in a dictionary. If you want to know who I am, Google 'Ellis statistiek advies'. If you want to be sure that I am this person, go to the site of the university where I work (the link is on my website), search for my name, and e-mail to that adress. I will reply and tell you that I am the same person.
As for the chatting: There is no conspiracy. I was just surprised that one of my reviews appeared on the login page. I had never seen that before. Like Eu said: It is a chat, not a forum. If you want to preserve what you wrote, you should write on the forum. As I remember it, the texts of Pal were there already several hours, so I did not anticipate that he wanted to preserve them any longer. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (9:26) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (0:35) Dr. Jules Ellis, I believe has a P.hd., in Psychology. I believe he was getting even with me for deleting his posts in my forum, just as Eu hinted. I have been noticing a change in his persoanlity in my private correspondences with him and also in the forums. Makes me shudder to think that he might be turning into a Dr. Robert Stadler? He has potential to be a good trader. Hate to see him to go in the wrong track....
See entire
More precisely, I studied mathematics and mathematical psychology, and my doctorate is in social sciences. My publications are mainly statistical (e.g. Google 'Ellis tail-measurability').
I was not trying to get even with you. Eu didn't hint that, on the contrary, he pointed out that it was a chat. My personality didn't change, except perhaps that I try to write less and briefer postings, because most relevant discussions here end like this one: totally unproductive. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Daniel Ramirez |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (20:45) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/11/06 (9:26) More precisely, I studied mathematics and mathematical psychology, and my doctorate is in social sciences. My publications are mainly statistical (e.g. Google 'Ellis tail-measurability')....
See entire
By the way, I am glad that I didn't subscribe Smartetrade Eclipse Fx. The "God-giving Loss" happened just I was thinking to subscribe it. Mr, Nelson state "Thanksgiving Drawdown", but ironically it is Not thanks giving it. We all should know that trading involves risks, I mean big risks. Daniel |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/11/06 (20:47) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 12/11/06 (9:26) More precisely, I studied mathematics and mathematical psychology, and my doctorate is in social sciences. My publications are mainly statistical (e.g. Google 'Ellis tail-measurability')....
See entire
>Eu didn't hint that
I disagree. He gave me a clear hint.
>My personality didn't change,
I disagree. You have indeed changed to the worse along with C2.
>most relevant discussions here end like this one: totally unproductive.
I disagree. It was highly productive. I was able to explode several common fallacies...
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/12/06 (0:40) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (20:47) >Eu didn't hint that
I disagree. He gave me a clear hint.
>My personality didn't change,
I disagree. You have indeed changed to the worse along with C2....
See entire
> I disagree. It was highly productive. I was able to explode several common fallacies...
Don't kid yourself. Did you call ot email Dave Druz as I suggested? Or
are you still just wandering around in your own paper trading delusions?
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/15/06 (13:47) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/11/06 (20:47) >Eu didn't hint that
I disagree. He gave me a clear hint.
>My personality didn't change,
I disagree. You have indeed changed to the worse along with C2....
See entire
> I disagree. It was highly productive. I was able to explode several common fallacies...
I thought I'd give you some time Pal to read the link to Dr. Druz that I posted. 1) Contrary to your assumption he uses stops 100% of the time (see below) and 2) drawdowns are calculated based on open equity AKA
"asset value". ***'s are added by me for emphasis. Just so we are clear, it was Pal who brought up Dr. Druz to prove his point, but it would appear Pal has not bothered to read anything about Dr. Druz.....
So the only thing you proved here Pal is that you don't know squat....
but we already knew that.
http://www.tacticalnet.com/Tactical%20Disclosure%20Document%2009-15-06.pdf
"Some examples of the money management strategies used by the
System are: Overall portfolio risk exposure is constantly reassessed;
***stop-loss orders*** are placed whenever a trade is entered and once
placed, never retreat from the market;"
"Worst peak-to-valley draw-down is defined as the greatest
cumulative percentage decline in month-end **asset value** due to losses sustained by the pool, account or composite during a period in which the initial month-end **net asset value** is not equaled or exceeded by a subsequent month-end **net asset value.**" |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Bundle Trader ( C2 Score: 967) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/15/06 (14:15) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 12/15/06 (13:47) > I disagree. It was highly productive. I was able to explode several common fallacies...
I thought I'd give you some time Pal to read the link to Dr. Druz that I posted. 1) Contrary to your assumption he uses stops 100% of the time (see below) and 2) drawdowns are calculated based on open equity AKA
...
See entire
This has already been pointed out.
It is not a closed-equity graph. It is a graph outlining performance compiled per CFTC regulations, and includes all open and closed trade equity. If indeed you still can't admit that fact, that is quite disturbing.
He doesn't want to hear it. You might as well argue with a brick wall. |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/15/06 (14:27) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Bundle Trader of 12/15/06 (14:15) This has already been pointed out.
It is not a closed-equity graph. It is a graph outlining performance compiled per CFTC regulations, and includes all open and closed trade equity. If indeed you still can't admit that fact, that is quite disturbing.
...
See entire
> You might as well argue with a brick wall.
It's really not for his benefit, but he brought up Druz to
make his point....So in case there is anyone out there
that believes Pal's assertion that long term "robust"
systems don't use stops, or that Pal's systems don't work
on C2 because he can't use the right options, the proof to
the contrary is right in Pal's own example! |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/15/06 (15:30) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Bundle Trader of 12/15/06 (14:15) This has already been pointed out.
It is not a closed-equity graph. It is a graph outlining performance compiled per CFTC regulations, and includes all open and closed trade equity. If indeed you still can't admit that fact, that is quite disturbing.
...
See entire
It doesn't matter to me what is shown in the graph. He would've made more money if he had hedged his open positions with options instead of using stops but I never asserted that long term systems do not use stops. That assertion is quite ridiculous
The graph looks better with month end values being plotted instead of day to day values. Maybe C2 can have a similar option just as the Sharpe Ratio is calculated using monthly values. But I'm not entirely convinced that Dr. Druz's system is less robust than mine because it is less volatile unless I can see the month end equity curve plotted at C2 because he also says this: "The more robust a system, the more volatile it tends to be! This is because robust systems are not optimized to particular markets or market conditions. The converse is also true. You can design systems with excellent returns and low volatility on historical testing, but which work only for given periods in given markets. These systems tend to be curve-fit or market-fit & are not robust." |
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/15/06 (18:17) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 12/15/06 (15:30) It doesn't matter to me what is shown in the graph. He would've made more money if he had hedged his open positions with options instead of using stops but I never asserted that long term systems do not use stops. That assertion is quite ridiculous
...
See entire
> He would've made more money if he had hedged his open positions with options instead of using stops but I never asserted that long term systems do not use stops. That assertion is quite ridiculous.
Did you read what you just wrote?
There is a comedy on American TV called The Office. The office idiot is
named Dwight. In the episode last night Dwight (who "knows everything") tells a Teppanyaki chef that he should get a different type of knife because it is better. The chef doesn't agree. The woman next to Dwight tells him "He would know (the chef uses these knives every day), he would know which knife is better."
Pal, you know nothing about Dr. Druz's system. He has been trading for it for 25 years. Yet sight unseen you can say: "He would've made more money if he had hedged his open positions with options instead of using stops." Do you think Dr. Druz is an idiot? Or do you think he's thought this through?
"The graph looks better with month end values being plotted instead of day to day values. Maybe C2 can have a similar option just as the Sharpe Ratio is calculated using monthly values."
If you have an actual account (as you know, I assume you don't actually trade at all), why don't you plot your own real money month end equity curve?
|
|
| | |
Thread closed |
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | !!!! Tragedy: Eclipse FX !!!!!! |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 12/17/06 (8:54) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, | | | |
