| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Index ( C2 Score: 975 ) |
 |
| |
|
| When: | 4/12/06 (22:20) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | Now HERE is something I would like to see in C2, although I am sure we will not get it : )
How about showing how many (paid) subscribers a system has, through C2?
After the performance, that is what tells me how realistic a system is - real people putting real money into a system, because it is:
- profitable
- tradeable
- reasonable customer service
- etc.
|
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Graham Bell |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (6:08) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Index of 4/12/06 (22:20) Now HERE is something I would like to see in C2, although I am sure we will not get it : )
How about showing how many (paid) subscribers a system has, through C2?
...
See entire
I'd like to see this too. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Nicolai Richter ( C2 Score: 930) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (7:06) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Graham Bell of 4/13/06 (6:08) I'd like to see this too.
Maybe it could be implemented at least on an opt-in basis for the system vendor? I could imagine many would not like their subscriber numbers to be seen. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (9:02) | |
| 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 Nicolai Richter of 4/13/06 (7:06) Maybe it could be implemented at least on an opt-in basis for the system vendor? I could imagine many would not like their subscriber numbers to be seen.
One should realize that the real productivity of a system/method (expressed in RF) is determined from trading it real-time with real money (most probably by the system vendor himself), not by the number of subscribers who may not be able to distinguish wheat from chaff.
ps: The philosophically objective value of a product is the evaluation reached by the men with the best grasp of reality (in a specific category and context), regardless of whether or not they are involved in buying and selling the product. The socially objective value is the evaluation reached by the actual buyers and sellers. These two evaluations are not necessarily the same, because the buyers and sellers may lack the requisite grasp of reality; they may lack the knowledge which would make the product, as judged by their own mind, a need, a pleasure, a value (or, conversely, would make the product a disvalue). |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 4/13/06 (9:02) One should realize that the real productivity of a system/method (expressed in RF) is determined from trading it real-time with real money (most probably by the system vendor himself), not by the number of subscribers who may not be able to distinguish wheat from chaff....
See entire
I agree. Our System Energy Futures has a good performance. Nevertheless, some suscribers had a loss because they are not following the instructions: i.e. stop loss and so on. They sometimes do not follow the system and sometimes they claim the loss. Another reason: we were long the Unleaded Gasoline with an enormous gain and the stop and reverse was a lot below. If you are gaining from start, closing on the reverse is good, but if you have just open this can result in a loss. So, when there is a new customer, we send an e-mail explaining that he or she should intervene ON THE REVERSE, not on the half of an operation. It seems that this is not understood. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Index ( C2 Score: 975) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (15:10) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 4/13/06 (9:02) One should realize that the real productivity of a system/method (expressed in RF) is determined from trading it real-time with real money (most probably by the system vendor himself), not by the number of subscribers who may not be able to distinguish wheat from chaff....
See entire
Pal: "The philosophically objective value of a product is the evaluation reached by the men with the best grasp of reality (in a specific category and context), regardless of whether or not they are involved in buying and selling the product"
Are you sure you are not an existentialist? This is basically a sentence that says nothing!
I am not sure if you like to wax prosaic because it makes you feel good or it is because you had nothing to say??? sheesh! |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Index ( C2 Score: 975) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (15:20) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Index of 4/13/06 (15:10) Pal: "The philosophically objective value of a product is the evaluation reached by the men with the best grasp of reality (in a specific category and context), regardless of whether or not they are involved in buying and selling the product"
...
See entire
Anyway, I would say a vendor who is afraid to let others know whether he has any subscribers is missing out. Sunlight and good information is the best way to expose the viability of an advisory.
I doubt that subscribers can be blamed for a difficult to follow system. A straightforward system can be followed. These forums loudly declare when things are unreal, like someone who pointed out that a track record called for 400,000 shares of a stock, amidst a daily volume of 500,000 shares. It is like blaming readers for a boring or hard-to-follow book/movie.
Subscribers vote with their dollars. Recently, a study/survey came out that showed that for many topics, that mass opinion fares better than the experts at predicting or determining reality, sort of like the success on the former "Millionnaire" show, when the ask the audience lifeline had a very high chance of being correct.
In fact, the equities and futures markets represent the instantaneous votes of the masses. Many people try to forecast the market as being "undervalued" or "overvalued", but there is no such thing. The market has a pretty darn good idea of what the price should be, and it constantly adjusts itself to reality. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Lew Payne ( C2 Score: 912) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (15:26) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Index of 4/13/06 (15:20) Anyway, I would say a vendor who is afraid to let others know whether he has any subscribers is missing out. Sunlight and good information is the best way to expose the viability of an advisory....
See entire
Regarding the 400k trade block... that was me who pointed out it. It is now permanently engrained in my "analyst page" comments. Now I know why they call it an "anal-yst page"... because if you're not careful, you take it in the rear.
|
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Index ( C2 Score: 975) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (15:28) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Lew Payne of 4/13/06 (15:26) Regarding the 400k trade block... that was me who pointed out it. It is now permanently engrained in my "analyst page" ...
See entire
that was a great point on your part. And if there are 20 subscribers, each also trying to trade 400,000 of that, well... you get the point |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Lew Payne ( C2 Score: 912) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (15:29) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 4/13/06 (9:02) One should realize that the real productivity of a system/method (expressed in RF) is determined from trading it real-time with real money (most probably by the system vendor himself), not by the number of subscribers who may not be able to distinguish wheat from chaff....
See entire
"productivity of a system... not by the number of subscribers who may not be able to distinguish wheat from chaff."
I completely disagree. The number of subscribers is very relevant. Those who can't distinguish "what from chaff" will soon lose all their investment money and not be able to afford the subscription. Those who do distinguish same will remain subscribers.
|
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Index ( C2 Score: 975) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (15:37) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Lew Payne of 4/13/06 (15:29) "productivity of a system... not by the number of subscribers who may not be able to distinguish wheat from chaff."
...
See entire
Lew - you got it. A system with few subscribers tells me a LOT about a system.
For example, there is a reason that Google overtook Altavista and other search engines years back. They did a better job than anyone at search, AND they had a clean, simple interface that wasn't cluttered with a lot of distractions. People trusted them.
How many posts have complained about how untradable some of these quick in and out systems are, especially with autotrading? Is that the fault of subscribers? |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Peter Pritzl ( C2 Score: 86) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (15:58) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Lew Payne of 4/13/06 (15:29) "productivity of a system... not by the number of subscribers who may not be able to distinguish wheat from chaff."
...
See entire
'I completely disagree. The number of subscribers is very relevant.'
Ok, so I admit that I have no subscribers, Zero, Zilch. According to your logic my system therefore is pretty useless.
Hmmm...I have a rating of 913, the system is not rated too bad either with 9.73/10, and it pretty much could pay my bills with a few minutes work a day.
go figure...and have a nice holiday, eveybody
Peter
|
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Lew Payne ( C2 Score: 912) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (16:25) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Peter Pritzl of 4/13/06 (15:58) 'I completely disagree. The number of subscribers is very relevant.'
Ok, so I admit that I have no subscribers, Zero, Zilch. According to your logic my system therefore is pretty useless....
See entire
Peter -- Remaining objective when answering simple questions is a sign of maturity. It's the type of maturity I'm looking for in any advisory service I subscribe to. I want a service that is objective, not emotional.
I'm sorry you found the original question so painful. I don't judge a new service by its subscriber base... but rather by the track record it sets forth. In fact, I specifically look for new angles that have not yet become encumbered by the weight of hundreds of traders.
Perhaps it would fare you well to simply remain polite and non-evasive in the face of adversity, offer no excuses, and continue to speak through your track records. That's what really counts. Just because your system is new doesn't mean it's ignored. Do well, over a statistically reasonable period of time, and you shall be discovered. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Eu New ( C2 Score: 965) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (17:53) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Index of 4/12/06 (22:20) Now HERE is something I would like to see in C2, although I am sure we will not get it : )
How about showing how many (paid) subscribers a system has, through C2?
...
See entire
Ross,
Two persons that are sniffing in my pocket is enough for me. IRS and my wife. I don't know who is worse, but it's enough lol
So I'd like to admit your honor. I have no subscribers. Zero, Zilch, Null, Nobody, Nothing. I'm helping a poor people. Can I write it off from my taxes as charity, your honor?
(more seriously)
You can easy decipher in C2 at least autotraders and make some numbers.
Eu
|
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Kevin Davey ( C2 Score: 1000) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (20:51) | |
| Systems: | 3 Pair Forex, Congress ES, ETF Basket, Gen 2 - Mini S&P Only, Gen 3 - Mini S&P Only, KJ Mini Action, KJ Mini SP, KJ Price Action, Relative ETF, SFE, Trender, Gen 1 - Mini S&P Only (Closed), KJ Test 1 (closed), Master Mini S&P, Mighty Mini S&P, Mini N&R, No Trades Since Jan 08, Notable Nasdaq Mini |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Eu New of 4/13/06 (17:53) Ross,
Two persons that are sniffing in my pocket is enough for me. IRS and my wife. I don't know who is worse, but it's enough lol
...
See entire
OK, everyone is being honest here, so I'll admit, right now I have ZERO subscribers also. I had one, but he bailed at the first drawdown, and probably now wishes he hadn't, just as I wish I hadn't had the 26% drawdown which probably made him bail (if I didn't know my system well enough, I might have bailed too).
The only problem I see is that newer systems without subscribers would be penalized - but then again, until you build a decent C2 track record, why should people subscribe?
I would not mind seeing number of subscribers for each system. Although, like anything else, someone would figure out a way to sign up "fake" subscribers to make his system look popular.
|
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pete * |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (20:54) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Kevin Davey of 4/13/06 (20:51) OK, everyone is being honest here, so I'll admit, right now I have ZERO subscribers also. I had one, but he bailed at the first drawdown, and probably now wishes he hadn't, just as I wish I hadn't had the 26% drawdown which probably made him bail (if I didn't know my system well enough, I might have bailed too)....
See entire
Wow, thanks to those of your who have been forthcoming with your subscriber counts - its a real eye opener. I wonder if MK would be willing to share any aggregated information like the total number of people subscribed to systems (that aren't free), excluding those folks in trial periods. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/13/06 (22:10) | |
| 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 4/13/06 (20:54) Wow, thanks to those of your who have been forthcoming with your subscriber counts - its a real eye opener. I wonder if...
See entire
If I remember correctly, MK has already answered this question previously when it was posed. The answer was something like if there are too many subscribers at C2, many would be envious and if there are too few subscribers, then this site would be disparaged with questions like "is that all?"
Judge a system/method as to how realistic its productive profits are, not by the # of subscribers because even if an (open) system/method has only one subscriber (for eg., the system vendor himself), its real productivity in real-life is in no-way dimnished.
ps: As people gain the requisite knowledge, their assessment coincides with the philosophically objective value of the product. In time, barring accidents, the two assessments coincide. The creative minority grasps the philosophically 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 (public), which prevail only at and for any given moment; it is ruled by those who are able to see and plan long-range - and the better the mind, the longer the range... |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Graham Bell |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/14/06 (8:47) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 4/13/06 (22:10) If I remember correctly, MK has already answered this question previously when it was posed. The answer was something like if there are too many subscribers at C2, many would be envious and if there are too few subscribers, then this site would be disparaged with questions like "is that all?"
...
See entire
Most of the discussion on this topic has been around whether or not the level of subscribers is significant in assessing a system.
But the reason I am interested is as a potential system vendor. I have what I believe to be good systems with good histories but I'd like to get an idea of how many subscribers are out there subscribing to systems to know whether it is worth the (admittedly small) effort and cost of promoting a system on C2.
C2 is a very clever and impressive system, kudos to Matthew, but what matters to vendors is the number/value of subscriptions and the feedback on this thread so far is not encouraging, maybe the successful vendors don't want to brag!.
From this point of view, rather than showing the number of subscribers for each individual system (which some vendors will object to) the system could show a chart of, say, the number of subscribers and total subscription revenue for each month over the last 12 months? And perhaps a distribution showing the number of systems with a certain number (or bands) of subscribers for the previous month e.g. 2 systems had 20-25 subscribers, 10 had 15-19 subscribers etc.
This would not reveal any information about particular systems but would help potential systems vendors decide on whether to invest and how much.
Graham
|
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Chris Morse |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/14/06 (10:54) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Graham Bell of 4/14/06 (8:47) Most of the discussion on this topic has been around whether or not the level of subscribers is significant in assessing a system....
See entire
If you have a good system, but you cannot afford $200 a year to list it and are worried that you won't get subscribers to cover the cost, I am not sure you have a system worthwhile listing then.
Chris |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | charles curty ( C2 Score: 74) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/14/06 (15:32) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Eu New of 4/13/06 (17:53) Ross,
Two persons that are sniffing in my pocket is enough for me. IRS and my wife. I don't know who is worse, but it's enough lol
...
See entire
Hi there,
I am quite surprised than Tango says he has no subscribers.
It has a good equity curve, very much acceptable drawdowns, "long" history compared to the average vendor, and not the least : decent stocks quality selection.
I would have bet that Tango has some followers.
Who has an explanation ?
Could it be that at C2, there are more systems vendors than systems buyers ?
Charles |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Eu New ( C2 Score: 965) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/14/06 (18:24) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Graham Bell of 4/14/06 (8:47) Most of the discussion on this topic has been around whether or not the level of subscribers is significant in assessing a system....
See entire
Graham
I'd like to get an idea of how many subscribers are out there subscribing to systems to know whether it is worth the (admittedly small) effort and cost of promoting a system on C2.
It's valid point. You can easy estimate it.
1. Find on C2 a system that trades similar instruments and timeframe as yours.
2. The system should be auto-traded.
3. In "Cumu $" -> "and real-life slippage" when you have a mouse pointer over question mark "?" you can see number of trades executions.
4. Check it before trading session and after.
5. After end of the session you'll have published trades.
6. Estimate number of autotrading subscribers for the system.
7. Estimate other stats from the system for your system.
It's very simple ;)
Kevin, Pete , charles
I was joking, at least I tried ;) It's tax season in the states so anybody who is trying to count money in my pocket makes me nervous.
I would have bet that Tango has some followers.
You won the bet with one exception. It's not followers/crowd. Tango is capital intensive system, it's required iron balls to trade it, because it's always in DD and I'm trying to explain risk of the system anybody who cares to ask about the risks. It might be my illusion, but I don't have "followers" so far.
Eu
|
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | charles curty ( C2 Score: 74) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/15/06 (14:55) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Eu New of 4/14/06 (18:24) Graham
I'd like to get an idea of how many subscribers are out there subscribing to systems to know whether it is worth the (admittedly small) effort and cost of promoting a system on C2.
...
See entire
On your Tango performance, sorry but,
I was for over 30 years in (Wall Street) finances, therefore as an old timer if I compliment (infrequently) someone it is not to be pleasant but because I mean it.
I have looked into your trading style in various ways and even if you are surprised.....I still give you a 5 stars rating ! Smile.
The weaknesses you mentioned could simply turned into strengths.
No maths involved but simple common sense.
And C2 is a great platform to "view, feel and smell" great and not so great trading systems.
For further inputs, for whatever they are worth, please feel free to contact me at :
ch_curty@bluewin.ch
Its free any anyway. Smile
Cordially
Charles
|
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Graham Bell |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/18/06 (5:15) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Chris Morse of 4/14/06 (10:54) If you have a good system, but you cannot afford $200 a year to list it and are worried that you won't get subscribers to cover the cost, I am not sure you have a system worthwhile listing then....
See entire
Chris,
You are right about the "cost" aspect, it is insignificant, perhaps I should have emphasised the "effort" aspect.
Graham |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Mike Jolley ( C2 Score: 283) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/18/06 (23:31) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Graham Bell of 4/14/06 (8:47) Most of the discussion on this topic has been around whether or not the level of subscribers is significant in assessing a system....
See entire
Hi all,
I think this is my first post in the forums here. I'm a little worried about not getting subscribers, because it seens that there aren't many subscribers out there.
I've already paid to publish my system. I'm pretty sure I'll have some spectacular results soon, and be shown on the "hot hands" list, etc.
I would have to agree that a system with an established track record is more worthy of getting subscribers than a new system. I've noticed a dangerous phenomenon involving people signing up to and actually risking money on the advice of new systems just because they're free and happend to have a couple winning trades. It's possible to start a bunch of systems on C2, each of which does random trades, and one of them will probably look like a winner, and that's the one you keep.
Therefore, as a new "vendor" I want people to see and judge my trades pubically, and only after that should people sign up for my system. I have only one "system" which represents everything I know about trading. I can't tell you everything I know about trading, but I can tell you my reasons for making each trade. I'm an engineer, and have seen the failure of a lot of proprietary stuff simply because the flaws weren't open to review.
I guess what I'm saying is that there should be two ways for a system to get subscribers: Track record, and peer review. The number of previous subscribers probably just corresponds to whether a system is free or cheap, whether it shows up in the 5-day best systems, whether they paid for a featured listing, etc.
I want new systems to get a chance because I'm selling one, but I don't think C2 is doing enough to protect people from garbage systems that keep their "methods" secret because they're really based on luck. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Mike Jolley ( C2 Score: 283) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/19/06 (1:36) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Mike Jolley of 4/18/06 (23:31) Hi all,
I think this is my first post in the forums here. I'm a little worried about not getting subscribers, because it seens that there aren't many subscribers out there....
See entire
Hi all,
I think that might have sounded a little selfish for my first post.
I guess I should say, I anticipate hearing from all of you, and would be proud to become a valued member of this community. Even if I have doubts about hitching myself to C2, I think it's a great idea, and probably a way for people to get better trading advice than through a broker.
I think I have a good grasp of technical trading, and I welcome anyone to talk to me about my trades or bounce ideas off me. I love to hear new ideas and I never fail to give credit where it's due.
|
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pete * |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/19/06 (8:37) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Mike Jolley of 4/18/06 (23:31) Hi all,
I think this is my first post in the forums here. I'm a little worried about not getting subscribers, because it seens that there aren't many subscribers out there....
See entire
"It's possible to start a bunch of systems on C2, each of which does random trades, and one of them will probably look like a winner, and that's the one you keep."
Maybe so but MK has taken steps to limit this - as far as I know you can't delete a system so once a vendor creates one it stays out there for all to see (the exception seems to be if the vendor stops supporting it, which removes it from some places in C2 but still lets a dilligent person find out that the vendor created and abandoned the system)
So short of a vendor creating multiple independent C2 accounts (which I would hope would be a violation of the TOS of C2) its hard for a vendor to hide from their past mistakes.
One thing that I have noticed that I would like MK's comment on is the ability for a vendor to change the system name and description as they please.
It seems to me that the name should not be changable on a whim, especially when certain vendors have taken to adding lots of description in their name, e.g. system XYZ (risky) or system ABC (conservative).
This can lead to describing the system after the fact (in response to how the trades play out) and may give the false impression that the vendor has carefully constructed a system that matches the name criteria when in fact they are just describing how it unfolded. I don't see any legitimate reason why a system name should ever need to change (and those rare exceptions could be handled by MK)
In terms of the system description I think the vendor should be allowed to append to it but not modify/delete anything once it is written (and everything should be dated).
There have been cases I know of where a vendor blatantly lied in their description (e.g. no overnight trades, max XX contracts) and they can hide those lies simply by changing the description (after the fact).
Someone reviewing a vendors trade history needs to see what the vendor said about the system at the time the trades were executed - this revisionist history stuff has no place here. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pete * of 4/19/06 (8:37) "It's possible to start a bunch of systems on C2, each of which does random trades, and one of them will probably look like a winner, and that's the one you keep."
...
See entire
Let me address some of the issues you brought up, Pete:
(1) You can't delete system once you create them. There is a minor exception: if the system has fewer than five trade signals (executed or not), and you don't pay the listing fee, and you never have a subscriber (free or paid), then you can delete it. But once more than five signals are entered, or you have a subscriber, the system is permanent.
(2) A few months ago, I too realized that people were after-the-fact changing the names of their systems to disguise poor performance. "Conservative Stock Picks" became "High Risk Picks" after a major blow-up. So Collective2 has been keeping track of system name changes for the past few months. As of today, this information is not viewable by users, but I intend to make it accessible soon.
(3) I agree that we probably need to implement a similar tracking system for system descriptions. That is, I need to make it so that traders who really want to do serious due diligence should be able to see all of the previous descriptions of a system provided by a system vendor, so that a trader can decide if the vendor is changing the rules mid-way through the game. That feature does not currently exist, however.
Matthew |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pete * |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/19/06 (9:15) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Matthew Klein of 4/19/06 (9:08) Let me address some of the issues you brought up, Pete:
(1) You can't delete system once you create them. There is a minor exception: if the system has fewer than five trade signals (executed or not), and you don't pay the listing fee, and you never have a subscriber (free or paid), then you can delete it. But once more than five signals are entered, or you have a subscriber, the system is permanent....
See entire
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Hans Hansen ( C2 Score: 982) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/19/06 (12:45) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Matthew Klein of 4/19/06 (9:08) Let me address some of the issues you brought up, Pete:
(1) You can't delete system once you create them. There is a minor exception: if the system has fewer than five trade signals (executed or not), and you don't pay the listing fee, and you never have a subscriber (free or paid), then you can delete it. But once more than five signals are entered, or you have a subscriber, the system is permanent....
See entire
RE: Description changes. I see this as a double edged sword. While I understand the reasoning that you don't want the rules changed to hide or deceive, I think a vendor should be allowed to clarify a description, update any information that becomes dated, or simply change the description's presentation - like how any company will change and/or update a sales brochure. If the changes were marked and dated as was suggested, it could become quite unwieldy, and mess up the general appearance of the vendor's "brochure". In marketing, appearance is everything, and the vendor should be allowed to keep the description neat and tidy, as well as accurate and concise. This description is the only "brochure" or "store window" that we have here, and we should be allowed to maintain the display in a professional appearing way.
An example: My new system, Trend Toast has a description that basically says "Not ready for prime time." I want the trade history and equity graphs to be a bit seasoned before trying to actively promote it. (As a new system, it's not likely to show up on any searches anyway.) Once it's ready, I'll change the description to more accurately inform anybody who may be interested. In essence, I've rented the store, but we're closed until the inventory is in place and the displays are properly set up. Then we will have a grand opening.
Just my .02,
Hans. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/19/06 (13:05) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Hans Hansen of 4/19/06 (12:45) RE: Description changes. I see this as a double edged sword. While I understand the reasoning that you don't want the ...
See entire
Pete and Hans,
I think both are valid points. Perhaps it can be done in this way: On the system page you see the latest system description (showing how the vendor looks at it now) and a button / link to older system descriptions. When you go with the mouse over the link, there appears some grey explanation box that describes the general reasons why one should consider old too descriptions too (as Pete and MK just described).
Jules |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pete * |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/19/06 (13:15) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Hans Hansen of 4/19/06 (12:45) RE: Description changes. I see this as a double edged sword. While I understand the reasoning that you don't want the ...
See entire
I hear what you are saying but as a subscriber I must say that I think that keeping the vendors honest by not changing the rules in the middle of the game or re-writing history is more important then keeping their system description all neat and tidy.
Not sure I agree with the sales brochure analogy - I'd say the system description more like the instructions/warning label on a prescription bottle. Oh, I didn't mention that 1 out of 10 people taking this prescription will have uncontrolled vomiting? So sorry...let me just add that to the description now. Hope that wasn't your favorite outfit.
I think vendors that start a system with one method or strategy and then change completely mid-stream are just being cheap anyway - they should just drop the system and pay the fee to start a new system. Not very professional when a vendor dabbled in stocks for 6 months then one day decides to trade emini's only instead.
In your specific case I would suggest that you post nothing in the system description during your seasoning period and then when are you are ready for prime time you could post the proper description and it would look fine. I would think most vendors wouldn't be changing their description much anyway except to add something like, "now that we've doubled our capital we are going to increase the size of our trades to x" which would look fine appended with a timestamp.
Anyway, my 2 cents... |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pete * |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/19/06 (13:16) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 4/19/06 (13:05) Pete and Hans,
I think both are valid points. Perhaps it can be done in this way: On the system page you see the latest system description (showing how the vendor looks at it now) and a button / link to older system descriptions. When you go with the mouse over the link, there appears some grey explanation box that describes the general reasons why one should consider old too descriptions too (as Pete and MK just described)....
See entire
Jules, that would work for me - as long as the information is there I don't care how it is packaged/presented. Good suggestion. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Hans Hansen ( C2 Score: 982) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/19/06 (13:29) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pete * of 4/19/06 (13:15) I hear what you are saying but as a subscriber I must say that I think that keeping the vendors honest by not changing the rules in the middle of the game or re-writing history is more important then keeping their system description all neat and tidy....
See entire
I understand and agree about "keeping the vendors honest". But the description is, aside from the equity graph and stats page, the only way to "present" the system to the consumer. What it is, how it works, when and how often it trades. If a description is incomplete, for example, it should be allowable to change it. And I agree about significantly changing a system .vs. starting a new one. Really doesn't make sense to me why you would tack new results onto something that presumably didn't work anyway.
As for my new system, I feel it would be MORE unprofessional to leave it blank rather than have an explanation as to WHY it's blank. On my more seasoned system, I've made minor alterations to wording, and in one case, my son pointed out a spelling error. I'm also considering changes to address frequent questions that I've been asked. I'd like to be able to include these changes in a professional matter within the description, rather as a tacked on, time stamped addendum.
More .02 (If we keep saving these pennies, pretty soon we'll have some REAL money!)
Hans. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Mike Jolley ( C2 Score: 283) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/21/06 (0:58) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Hans Hansen of 4/19/06 (13:29) I understand and agree about "keeping the vendors honest". But the description is, aside from the equity graph and stat...
See entire
A modest proposal:
Let the system provider supply optional anticipated stats along with the checkboxes regarding trading style. For example, when I started my system I had a firm rule of less than 3% risk of equity per trade and I would have gladly stamped that permanently on my system when I started it.
I also have a concept behind the system which involves operating on multiple timeframes which I shouldn't change because hey, I named the system after that.
I also have some vague descriptions of how I trade, which I'm sure I'll change based on which trades work well with C2's order entry system.
You could have certain rules based on your own stats such as max drawdown, but that particular statistic isn't something that can be controlled, same with w/l ratio, etc. Money management nuts-and-bolts, however, are things that it seems people are very concerned about when they consider subscribing, probably more so than daytrade vs. swing trade, etc. It should also be easy to warn vendors and subscribers when a system violates its own rules.
All that said, I think someone who is brand new to C2 and somehow manages to produce a successful system deserves a writeoff. That first system should be exempt from any rules like this due to some of the oddities of this trading platform, at least for a certain time period. I had an early nightmare where I placed an order that was instantly closed at a loss of thousands of dollars because I accidentally hit "enter" on my keyboard which apparently triggers the "quick trade" feature.
Speaking of the platform, I have a question for C2: If I wrote some software to wrap the C2 IDE with my own interface (I'm working on this for my own use), would you allow me to sell it? |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Mike Jolley of 4/21/06 (0:58) A modest proposal:
Let the system provider supply optional anticipated stats along with the checkboxes regarding trading style. For example, when I started my system I had a firm rule of less than 3% risk of equity per trade and I would have gladly stamped that permanently on my system when I started it....
See entire
Mike: We strongly encourage software developers to write C2-compatible products, and to make money selling them. We don't charge a cent for licensing, support, or anything else. (In fact, we will help pay for software companies and partner companies to advertise their C2-compatible products. For more info on our Marketing Co-op Program, contact matthew@collective2.com). |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Graham Bell |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/22/06 (2:07) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Mike Jolley of 4/18/06 (23:31) Hi all,
I think this is my first post in the forums here. I'm a little worried about not getting subscribers, because it seens that there aren't many subscribers out there....
See entire
Mike mentioned concern over protection from garbage systems that are just lucky. This is really what the track record does, the probability of someone's random luck persisting reduces dramatically the more trades they register. So it is simply up to the buyer to wait until they are happy that the track record is long enough to be significant. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Graham Bell |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/22/06 (2:12) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Matthew Klein of 4/19/06 (9:08) Let me address some of the issues you brought up, Pete:
(1) You can't delete system once you create them. There is a minor exception: if the system has fewer than five trade signals (executed or not), and you don't pay the listing fee, and you never have a subscriber (free or paid), then you can delete it. But once more than five signals are entered, or you have a subscriber, the system is permanent....
See entire
There has been a bit of scope creep on this thread and valuable though it has been I wonder if MK could share thoughts on the original topic, i.e. showing subscriber numbers in some way, such as per system or total new subscriptions per month or total current subscribers etc? |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Peter Pritzl ( C2 Score: 86) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/22/06 (2:40) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Graham Bell of 4/22/06 (2:12) There has been a bit of scope creep on this thread and valuable though it has been I wonder if MK could share thoughts o...
See entire
But then how will you act on the number of subscribers? Subscribe to a system you consider good, but that has few subscribers, or subscribe to a system because it has many subscribers? Many years ago, at the beginning of my futures trading, I bought a system to trade the Swisss Frank. The number of systems to be sold was limited to 500. In the beginning everything worked wonderful, the more systems were sold the worse it got, and when all 500 were sold, the system was useless.
All 500 traders and probably their friends and family placed exactly the same stops, so the traders on the floor took out the stops and that was that. System finished.
Peter |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/22/06 (12:30) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Index of 4/13/06 (15:20) Anyway, I would say a vendor who is afraid to let others know whether he has any subscribers is missing out. Sunlight and good information is the best way to expose the viability of an advisory....
See entire
"a study/survey came out that showed that for many topics, that mass opinion fares better than the experts...."
90%+ of futures traders lose money. Sorry, but your "study/survey" does
not apply to traders. A small few take home nearly all the marbles.
Moreover, when too many traders agree the market or system is doomed. What happens when 100% are long? The market tops. What happens when a famous analyst gets super popular? His system busts (see late 70's Granville or late 80's Precter or the trend following futures traders of the 70's and 80's). When market tools or opinions are too popular they are crushed by their own weight. This can happen even on a small scale as pointed out here with 400,000 share example and say 10 traders when the total volume is just 500,00. These facts are proven truths. Even the brokerage companies have studies showing this, but good luck finding those results on the front page of the WSJ. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/22/06 (12:57) | |
| 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 Sam Cook of 4/22/06 (12:30) "a study/survey came out that showed that for many topics, that mass opinion fares better than the experts...."
90%+ of futures traders lose money. Sorry, but your "study/survey" does
...
See entire
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/22/06 (14:01) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Peter Pritzl of 4/22/06 (2:40) But then how will you act on the number of subscribers? Subscribe to a system you consider good, but that has few subscr...
See entire
"I bought a system to trade the Swisss Frank. The number of systems to be sold was limited to 500. In the beginning everything worked wonderful, the more systems were sold the worse it got, and when all 500 were sold, the system was useless."
Bingo. Exactly. There are good trading systems with zero subscriptions
and there are bad ones (or they will GET bad) with many subscribers....
Actually C2 "featured" one of these as a "success" story. The system
went from +$400K to under $100 in less than two months. As the story goes the (OEX) system had a lot of subscribers. What would be of greater value than posting the number of subscribers is something like the "Realism Factor" that weights the volume in the markets traded vs the contracts/shares in the system times the # of subscribers. So if there are 10 subscribers X 100,000 shares recommended and the volume is 50,000 at the trade price the ATV (Actual Trade Value) is ZERO. Moreover, systems with low ATVs cannot be "featured" trading systems.
This, in the long run, would help C2 be more credible. The more credible C2 is the more likely people are to subscribe. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/22/06 (20:57) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 4/22/06 (14:01) "I bought a system to trade the Swisss Frank. The number of systems to be sold was limited to 500. In the beginning everything worked wonderful, the more systems were sold the worse it got, and when all 500 were sold, the system was useless."
...
See entire
I agree with Sam that the Realism factor should take care of this effect of the number of subscribers. But it would be even better if the Realism factor would include the actual fills that autotraders get, back-reported by Tradebullet to C2. I'm quite sure that Tradebullet reports the fills to C2, because this is written in the log files.
Since C2 knows the fills, it should be possible to compute the average fill and to base the Realism factor on it. Moreover, it should be possible to base the adjusted equity curve directly on the average fills. That would be much better than the current procedure, which, as I understand it, is to compute the optimal equity curve first and then multiply the profits with the Realism factor.
I think that the direct method is better because of this (based on my limited personal experience): when the system's optimal curve is flat for a while, and the Realism factor is say 50%, then the subscribers will have a loss. So the subscriber's equity curve will have draw down. The adjusted system's equity curve however, is just the optimal curve with the profits multiplied by .50 (perhaps a little more complex, but the result is very similar) and will therefore not show the draw down. It will be flat, like the optimal curve (50% of $0 proft is still $0). So in the current procedure the adjusted curve may display the 'real' profit correctly, but not the real draw downs.
Coming back to the number of subscribers, this still could be interesting as a kind of popularity vote. Perhaps that is not a good reason to chose a system, but why should C2 restrict the reasoning of subscribers? E.g. if some rich forex-trading woman wants to know the birthdate of a system because she believes in astrology, then she has my blessings, and I don't think that C2 should try to prevent her to chose in this way. Similarly with the number of subscribers.
BTW Sam, I've heard before that result that 90% of the future traders lose. But I assume that you are aware of the possibility that this percentage is distorted by the fact that the purpose of futures is to cover a risk, i.e. a kind of insurance, which makes losses part of the logic.
Jules |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/22/06 (22:59) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 4/22/06 (20:57) I agree with Sam that the Realism factor should take care of this effect of the number of subscribers. But it would be even better if the Realism factor would include the actual fills that autotraders get, back-reported by Tradebullet to C2. I'm quite sure that Tradebullet reports the fills to C2, because this is written in the log files....
See entire
"BTW Sam, I've heard before that result that 90% of the future traders lose. But I assume that you are aware of the possibility that this percentage is distorted by the fact that the purpose of futures is to cover a risk, i.e. a kind of insurance, which makes losses part of the logic."
Actually (as I assume you are aware) the %'s are worse for the the smaller traders and are based on speculative traders only. Indeed, this very high % of losing traders mostly end up closing their accounts. Hedgers must register as such and are not part of this equation.
Also, why should a private company, vendor, etc. have to disclose income, # of subscribers, etc? Again, to my way of thinking the only relevance is how it effects system performance. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/23/06 (0:05) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 4/22/06 (22:59) "BTW Sam, I've heard before that result that 90% of the future traders lose. But I assume that you are aware of the possibility that this percentage is distorted by the fact that the purpose of futures is to cover a risk, i.e. a kind of insurance, which makes losses part of the logic."
...
See entire
"Actually (as I assume you are aware) the %'s are worse for the the smaller traders and are based on speculative traders only."
No, I was not aware of that. Interesting!
"Also, why should a private company, vendor, etc. have to disclose income, # of subscribers, etc?"
In my view it would be C2 that discloses information, not the vendor himself. There is no moral obligation for C2 to disclose this information, only a wish from some subscribers. As far as the effect on system performance is concerned I agree that there is no reason (provided that the Realism factor improves), but people can still be interested for other reasons.
So let me change the question: Why should the number of subscribers be a secret? If taxes are the problem, well I don't know how the US tax laws are, but I suppose that the fact that payments are done via C2 assures that the IRS can anyhow easily access these numbers and relate them to the vendor. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/23/06 (0:53) | |
| 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 4/22/06 (20:57) I agree with Sam that the Realism factor should take care of this effect of the number of subscribers. But it would be even better if the Realism factor would include the actual fills that autotraders get, back-reported by Tradebullet to C2. I'm quite sure that Tradebullet reports the fills to C2, because this is written in the log files....
See entire
>Coming back to the number of subscribers, this still could be interesting as a kind of popularity vote. Perhaps that is not a good reason to chose a system, but why should C2 restrict the reasoning of subscribers?
This is not practical because system vendors have no obligation to practice any idea that would invite the attention, say, of the Gestapo (for some it is their spouse :-) or the IRS. Similarly, C2 has no obligation to practice any idea that would invite the attention of those (including the above mentioned entities) who are envious of its success. Most system vendors are not in a popularity contest but in the business of creating a productive system/method with "realistic" profits.
ps: Productiveness is not only a necessary element of a good system/method, it is the good system's central purpose. But, a systems/methods productiveness is logically interconnected to its other virtues, both in theory and in practice, since these virtues are expressions of rationality. None can be validated in isolation, apart from others; nor can one practice any one of them consistently while defaulting on the others. An objective criteria should uphold not disconnected rules, but an integrated way of existence, every aspect of which entails all the others. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Kirby Lusk ( C2 Score: 130) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/23/06 (11:40) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 4/23/06 (0:53) >Coming back to the number of subscribers, this still could be interesting as a kind of popularity vote. Perhaps that is not a good reason to chose a system, but why should C2 restrict the reasoning of subscribers?
...
See entire
I might as well throw my 2 cents worth into the subject of subscriber numbers. Everyone I feel have made some valid points here. My view is Collective2's system of recording participation or review of an individual program is sufficient. We can see how many times a trading platform is viewed and the number of people that are following the program.
If we were to make a comparison to the real world, Collective2's system has more transparency than what one could expect from sites that track CTAs or Hedge Funds. I monitor http://www.iasg.com which tracks participating CTAs. One doesn't get the number of subscribers for an individual CTA, but you do get assets under management totals which in a way is a measure of a CTAs effectiveness.
Paul your point about productiveness is right on target. Collective2 provides us a window into each individual program on this site, and much more data than what one could derive from viewing CTA's performance. Being able to see the individual trades tells me a lot about a program and is more informative than the number of subscribers paying for the service.
If the motivation of those that want subscriber totals is to determine whether there is enough activity to cover the yearly fee for Collective2, then their focus is too narrow. Collective2 is a training ground. Time and costs are probably not going to be covered through subscribers participation. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/23/06 (15:10) | |
| 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 Kirby Lusk of 4/23/06 (11:40) I might as well throw my 2 cents worth into the subject of subscriber numbers. Everyone I feel have made some valid points here. My view is Collective2's system of recording participation or review of an individual program is sufficient. We can see how many times a trading platform is viewed and the number of people that are following the program....
See entire
>I monitor http://www.iasg.com which tracks participating CTAs. One doesn't get the number of subscribers for an individual CTA, but you do get assets under management totals which in a way is a measure of a CTAs effectiveness.
Thanks for sharing this. Here is another resource: Fund of Hedge Funds Benchmark:
"Fund of Hedge Fund Benchmark" is an equally-weighted average of over 2,700 funds of hedge funds. Benchmark data begins on January 1, 1996.
The concept is to provide investors, money managers and other interested parties a complimentary monthly review of fund performance in the Alternative Asset Center's (AAC's) fund-of-hedge-fund database.
It is interesting to see their key data points.
http://www.aa-center.net/products/newsletters/default.htm
http://www.aa-center.net/Mailings/Newsletter/index_200603/
http://www.aa-center.net/donwnload/aac_directory_of_fund_of_hedge_funds_11_page.pdf
ps: I see a Subscription Frequency: The recurring time intervals at which a shareholder can subscribe to shares or units in the Fund, and Redemption Frequency: The recurring time intervals at which a shareholder can redeem shares or units in the Fund. I don't see any subscriber numbers there anywhere.. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/23/06 (20:27) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Kirby Lusk of 4/23/06 (11:40) I might as well throw my 2 cents worth into the subject of subscriber numbers. Everyone I feel have made some valid points here. My view is Collective2's system of recording participation or review of an individual program is sufficient. We can see how many times a trading platform is viewed and the number of people that are following the program....
See entire
"IF we were to make a comparison to the real world, Collective2's system has more transparency than what one could expect from sites that track CTAs or Hedge Funds."
OK, but those guys trade actual money. C2 systems sometimes
are way under margined or over volumed compared to the margins
requires or markets traded. That's where the screws need to be
tighter. Can't let a system buy 500,000 when there were only 50,000
at that price and then "feature" the system's "track record". |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/23/06 (21:32) | |
| 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 Sam Cook of 4/23/06 (20:27) "IF we were to make a comparison to the real world, Collective2's system has more transparency than what one could expect from sites that track CTAs or Hedge Funds."
...
See entire
Agree. MK's answer to this one is the Realism Factor (RF). But, RF is not being used to compute the final hypothetical real-time returns (final hypothetical real-time productivity). As such, right now, it is a meaningless number. It is not being used in lists like Good longer term Trading Systems in a correct way. MK's answer to this one is that RF is a work in progress and so it is not yet available for sorting, calculating hypothetical real-time returns etc. Instead, a minimum standard like RF > 0.3 is being used. So, where is the incentive for the system vendors to be honest and reliable when only such a minimum standard is what we have to adhere to?
In my opinion, RF should be used to adjust the final hypothetical real-time returns (return on starting equity, annualized return, total return and also in W:L ratio calculations etc.,), and then used to compute the various lists.
RF is indeed a great advance in trading system analysis but unfortunaltely that great advance is being set back by imposing arbitrary minimum standards. Also the Sharpe Ratio (SR) calculations seems to be much more accurate now on the surface, but I'm not sure it is statistically valid. It is hard for me to believe that Midas Med-Term (Prudent) (O) which used to have a SR of 2.246 previously now has a SR of 21.335, the 3rd highest among all systems.
ps: Jesus' question "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" is admirably exact. The man who "loses his soul" is, in virtue of such a condition, outside the concept of "profit." Of course, Jesus' question is not valid if read to imply a dichotomy between the world and the soul. It is instructive only if taken in one meaning: that the integrity of man's consciousness, its principled harmony with existence, is the precondition of man's benefitting from any of the splendor the world holds out to him.
This point applies to all human behavior, not only to the issue of honesty. Just as, in epistemology, irrational mental processes detach a conclusion from the realm of cognition; so, in ethics, irrational action detaches a goal from the realm of evaluation. Whenever an object, spiritual or material, is sought or obtained by behavior in conflict with moral principle - whether the behavior involves fraud, improper compromise, the initiation of force, or any other evil - the means employed, by their very nature, clash with reality and thereby deprive the object in that context of any evaluative standing. Once the guidance of principle is dropped, there is no rational method of evaluating
an object whether it is a trading system or any other entity. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/24/06 (13:10) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 4/23/06 (20:27) "IF we were to make a comparison to the real world, Collective2's system has more transparency than what one could expect from sites that track CTAs or Hedge Funds."
...
See entire
" "IF we were to make a comparison to the real world, Collective2's system has more transparency than what one could expect from sites that track CTAs or Hedge Funds."
OK, but those guys trade actual money."
Here's an example of a "featured system".
BTO 400,000 NGRU 0.46 3/22/06 9:51
STC400,000 0.90 3/24/06 14:18
Profit: $174,960 (which is more than 50% of the
systems total historical profit!)
The actual volume at .46 was less than 40,000. So the total
potential profit was $17,496 (likely much less as an actual
buy order for 40,000 much less 400,000 would have pushed
the market higher).
And this is just one trade. If we want apples to apples real
life track records this is THE issue. The # of subscribers
is way down the list and you can always Pmail a vendor
and ask him anyway. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/24/06 (15:47) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 4/24/06 (13:10) " "IF we were to make a comparison to the real world, Collective2's system has more transparency than what one could expect from sites that track CTAs or Hedge Funds."
...
See entire
But since the realism factor is apparently not something from which can shortly expect a good solution, a display based on the number of subscribers is relevant.
What about displaying a kind of "survival percentage": The number of subscribers who are subscribed to the system for more than 3 months, divided by the total number of subscribers. This could give an indication of how (un)happy subscribers are with the system. And the IRS cannot infer the vendor's income from this.
Of course there is a problem if the number of subscribers is small. I think the percentage should display NA then.
Jules |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Schmitty # |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/24/06 (17:25) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 4/24/06 (15:47) But since the realism factor is apparently not something from which can shortly expect a good solution, a display based on the number of subscribers is relevant....
See entire
Jules wrote:
> What about displaying a kind of "survival percentage":
> The number of subscribers who are subscribed to the
> system for more than 3 months, divided by the total
> number of subscribers.
I think that is an excellent idea! This statistic would be the
most directly tied to subscriber satisfaction of any of the
C2 statistics. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Alan Thielke |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/24/06 (18:02) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 4/24/06 (15:47) But since the realism factor is apparently not something from which can shortly expect a good solution, a display based on the number of subscribers is relevant....
See entire
Jules, I like your idea of survival percentage. Then one could at least infer from 'NA' that a system has never had any subscribers. MK has in the past expressed his view that simply publishing the number of subscribers to each system would not fit his business plan, even though it would be interesting to many of us subscribers. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Graham Bell |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/25/06 (2:23) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 4/22/06 (22:59) "BTW Sam, I've heard before that result that 90% of the future traders lose. But I assume that you are aware of the possibility that this percentage is distorted by the fact that the purpose of futures is to cover a risk, i.e. a kind of insurance, which makes losses part of the logic."
...
See entire
"Also, why should a private company, vendor, etc. have to disclose income, # of subscribers, etc? Again, to my way of thinking the only relevance is how it effects system performance."
Sam has a good point, where else would a vendor be obliged to publish information about the number of customers they have?
So how about making it an option for the vendor to display the number of subscribers. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/25/06 (2:36) | |
| 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 Graham Bell of 4/25/06 (2:23) "Also, why should a private company, vendor, etc. have to disclose income, # of subscribers, etc? Again, to my way of thinking the only relevance is how it effects system performance."
...
See entire
one benefit in knowing a survival percentage is that, if one knows which system has the largest survival percentage, I would then subscribe to it and do just the opposite of what it recommends for guaranteed profits! Sorry, that's the way the market works! |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pedro Pannon ( C2 Score: 209) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/25/06 (9:28) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Graham Bell of 4/25/06 (2:23) "Also, why should a private company, vendor, etc. have to disclose income, # of subscribers, etc? Again, to my way of thinking the only relevance is how it effects system performance."
...
See entire
>"So how about making it an option for the vendor to display the number of subscribers."
It IS already an option. Any vendor can freely post that info either in the system description or in the forum section of the system.
Ta da! We just invented hotwater...
This topic keeps coming up in every other month. Although it would be interesting to see the numbers I agree, there are way many more arguments against it, then for it, thus there will be no change.
Again, any vendor who wants to advertise the number of his subscribers is free to do so. Because almost nobody does that (except vendors with zero subscribers) the conclusion is that vendors don't want to reveal that number. And that is the end of the story... |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Pete * |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/25/06 (9:46) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pedro Pannon of 4/25/06 (9:28) >"So how about making it an option for the vendor to display the number of subscribers."
It IS already an option. Any vendor can freely post that info either in the system description or in the forum section of the system....
See entire
"It IS already an option. Any vendor can freely post that info either in the system description or in the forum section of the system."
I disagree, that is not the same thing as a system vendor allowing C2 to publish the subscriber stats. In the latter case the number can be trusted since it comes from an unbiased source.
Unfortunately system vendors do on occasion lie or at the very least stretch the trust so I if a vendor says "I have x subscribers" I don't know that to be true (who knows maybe they are playing semantic games and counting non-C2 subscribers or some other BS)
They also may choose to release that information only sporadically at times that are favorable to them vs. C2 which would make such information (accurately) available at all times if it were enabled. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/25/06 (11:50) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 4/24/06 (15:47) But since the realism factor is apparently not something from which can shortly expect a good solution, a display based on the number of subscribers is relevant....
See entire
"But since the realism factor is apparently not something from which can shortly expect a good solution, a display based on the number of subscribers is relevant."
This could be solved overnight. If a trade could not have occured
(margin, volume, etc) it doesn't go into the track record. Or at least
systems with RF's less than X are flaged and pulled from "best"
lists if the trades were impossible. The point here is the systems
should be ranked apples to apples. If one system is making 100%
per year on trades that could be made, and another is making
100% on fictional trades....well it's like saying I batted .700 in
little league, so I'm a better hitter than Ted Williams.
CTA's and hedge funds make actual trades, so the "RF" is built in.
Also, I've noticed in this thread there are some great systems with realistic track records that claim ZERO subscribers. What does that
tell us about the value of the # of subscribers? Just because people
want to see it doesn't mean it's a good thing. How many Duece Bigilo
movies have there been? |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Alan Thielke |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/25/06 (11:54) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 4/25/06 (2:36) one benefit in knowing a survival percentage is that, if one knows which system has the largest survival percentage, I w...
See entire
One could extend your contrarian-order logic to any system which had sufficient subscribers to cover the volume you (and other contrarians) wanted to trade. It is not clear to me that simply trading against others who are following the system signals would lead to profits. Perhaps you can give an example in a hypothetical system that uses limit orders to trade a single futures index. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/25/06 (13:29) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 4/25/06 (11:50) "But since the realism factor is apparently not something from which can shortly expect a good solution, a display based on the number of subscribers is relevant."
...
See entire
"This could be solved overnight."
But these things were discussed here more than once, and yet the RF still has some serious limitations. Apparantly it is more difficult than we think, or it has no priority, so probably it won't happen overnight.
"Also, I've noticed in this thread there are some great systems with realistic track records that claim ZERO subscribers."
I believe that was just a joke. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Graham Bell |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/26/06 (20:44) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 4/25/06 (11:50) "But since the realism factor is apparently not something from which can shortly expect a good solution, a display based on the number of subscribers is relevant."
...
See entire
Setting aside the issue of showing subscriber numbers per system (as it is so contentious) I'd still be interested to see a chart showing the number of subscribers across C2 something like this, I think it would help potential vendors see the value in the system as a whole:
50.........................x..............
40.....x.....x.....x.....x..............
30.....x.....x.....x.....x.....x.....x
20.....x.....x.....x.....x.....x.....x
10.....x.....x.....x.....x.....x.....x
00.....x.....x.....x.....x.....x.....x
.....Jan..Feb..Mar..Apr..May..Jun
I can sense there is resistance to the idea so now I'll keep quiet (probably).
Graham |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/27/06 (11:06) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 4/25/06 (13:29) "This could be solved overnight."
But these things were discussed here more than once, and yet the RF still has some serious limitations. Apparantly it is more difficult than we think, or it has no priority, so probably it won't happen overnight....
See entire
" "This could be solved overnight."
But these things were discussed here more than once, and yet the RF still has some serious limitations. Apparantly [sic] it is more difficult than we think..."
Well, if a system would loss money in real life than it shouldn't be listed
near the top of the rankings in "Hot Hands" or "Best Systems". If you see 50% of a system's profits came from one trade, on volume that didn't exist, you know it's a fantasy. You don't need a formula to figure that one out. I think C2 is GREAT! But C2 must take care not to market and hype unrealistic systems to the public. In the long run the integrity of C2 will yield more profits than the short term hype of lousy and obviously unrealistic systems.
" "Also, I've noticed in this thread there are some great systems with realistic track records that claim ZERO subscribers."
I believe that was just a joke."
I believe you are wrong. Please reread the post. It was no joke. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/27/06 (13:01) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 4/27/06 (11:06) " "This could be solved overnight."
But these things were discussed here more than once, and yet the RF still has some serious limitations. Apparantly [sic] it is more difficult than we think..."
...
See entire
"Also, I've noticed in this thread there are some great systems with realistic track records that claim ZERO subscribers....
I believe you are wrong. Please reread the post. It was no joke."
Eu wrote
"I was joking, at least I tried ;)"
Perhaps we have different views on what is a 'great' system... ;-)
Jules |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/27/06 (13:57) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 4/27/06 (13:01) "Also, I've noticed in this thread there are some great systems with realistic track records that claim ZERO subscribers.......
See entire
"Posted:Peter Pritzl (C2 Rating: 969)
When:4/13/06 (15:58)
Systems:Russel Triple Swing
In response to post by Lew Payne of 4/13/06 (15:29)
"productivity of a system... not by the number of subscribers who may not be able to distinguish wheat from chaff."
'I completely disagree. The number of subscribers is very relevant.'
Ok, so I admit that I have no subscribers, Zero, Zilch. According to your logic my system therefore is pretty useless.
Hmmm...I have a rating of 913, the system is not rated too bad either with 9.73/10, and it pretty much could pay my bills with a few minutes work a day.go figure...and have a nice holiday, eveybody
Peter "
OK, maybe not "great", but looks good to me....and I guess you have to ask him if he's joking.... I'm only psychic some of the time.... I'm sure you're more psychic than me ;-( |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Peter Pritzl ( C2 Score: 86) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/27/06 (14:26) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 4/27/06 (13:57) "Posted:Peter Pritzl (C2 Rating: 969)
When:4/13/06 (15:58)
Systems:Russel Triple Swing
In response to post by Lew Payne of 4/13/06 (15:29)
...
See entire
Agreed
Not great, just so..so
Was not joking
Peter |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/27/06 (15:10) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Peter Pritzl of 4/27/06 (14:26) Agreed
Not great, just so..so
Was not joking
Peter
"Agreed
Not great, just so..so "
Ah, don't sell your system short ;-) It's good to very good in many
measures: good sharpe, profit per trade, low DD, and it looks REAL.
A lot of "great" systems are smoke and mirrors or have such large
DD's you could or would never trade them. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | number of subscribers |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/27/06 (19:21) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 4/27/06 (11:06) " "This could be solved overnight."
But these things were discussed here more than once, and yet the RF still has some serious limitations. Apparantly [sic] it is more difficult than we think..."
...
See entire
Perhaps I didn't use the word "apparently" correctly. Does it mean something like "false impression"? That's not what I meant, it meant just "impression". |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
