Hows the % change feature coming along?

The way I see it, there are two ways you could do it:

1. (portfolio value)/(total value of cash deposits)

2. (portfolio value+value of withdrawals)/(total value of cash deposits)

The second option gives the total return on deposits, while the first gives net worth as a percentage of the money 'invested'.

you couldn't base it on net deposits (portfolio/(deposits-withdrawals)) as some trader's withdrawals would exceed their original deposits.

I think option 1 is good, because it is simple. But option 2 would be a fairer representation of trader ability.

The $20 minimum is a good idea also, so someone who puts in $1 and makes $10 doesn’t end up at the top. You could argue that the same is true for someone who puts in $20 and makes $50 etc, but once you get over the $10-20 mark you are generally talking diversified portfolios and complex decision making (not purely punts like may be the case with someone trading with just a couple of bucks).

Anyway, I wondered if the delay was due to teething problems or have you just not got around to it?

This has to be way way way down the priority list. In fact personally I don't see the point in publishing the table (in any form). I only care what I make, not what others make. My bank doesn't publish my account balance so why should Ipredict?

I like the competitive aspect of watching the top traders list.

Maybe we can have stocks like LEGS.5000.JUNE. That would be awesome. (And at the rate you're going, not silly

Great stock...once I get to the high 4000s I'll short it and then withdraw some of the cash a day or two before!

I think the competitive element can be a bad thing...encourages your to mark you portfolio to market to often rather than concentrate on the medium term return.

From the feedback Matt got this was the most popular feature. Of course I am biased as I only put in $20 and I'm over $300 so far.

I would imagine this feature would be less popular with people who put in loads of money to begin with.

The main issue is you don't really know how you are doing relative to others, as someone who has $1,500 on the leader-board may be an ok trader (if they put in $1,000) or they may be an awesome trader who only put in $100 to begin with.

According to Matt, the average put in by traders is around $50, so I would guess that most people enjoy the competitive aspect, and are here to have a bit of fun.

..or they may be a trader that put $1000 into their account but has only punted small but successfully (as you have). For those that are interested in the competitive aspect you would need to measure returns relative to true value at risk rather than (wealth+withdrawals)/sum deposited. As I say, not a high priority for me. I'd rather see the programmers work on improving the trading platform to make it more user friendly for those of us helped to keep the thing liquid (less scrolling for a start).

Amen to that!!!

Legs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (less scrolling for a start).

"As I say, not a high priority for me"

Yes, but according to the survey it is a high priority for the iPredict community - so I can understand why rocketman101 is asking about it.

"For those that are interested in the competitive aspect you would need to measure returns relative to true value at risk rather than (wealth+withdrawals)/sum deposited"

Why? I agree that it is harder to make money (proportionally) when you have a lot - as you move the market. But that does not mean that showing gains in terms of proportions has no value.

Once you get over $100 it is hardly small punts. At any one time I usually have positions on at least 5-10 stocks. It all about beating the market and using any knowlege (insider or otherwise) you may have to decide if current prices are fair.

Just ask Eric Crampton! Though as Warren Buffet said "beware of nerds bearing formulas"

Ha nice one, now the real stars can shine!