Forum Topics The Strawman Classic
Strawman
3 years ago

Congratulations @MarkRicho.

$10,000 coming your way!

Thanks to all our contestants also. Hope it was a bit of fun.

We're looking at more contests next year, and will be tweaking some of the rules and systems to incorporate some member feedback. 

We're also getting close to releasing improved ranking and badges for better member recognition for the general platform, as well as a raft of quality of life improvements. 

Cheers!

36
afrowest
3 years ago

Hey Andrew,

I have another idea for the next competition, what about an investment as opposed to trading competition, where you start with 100K and the competition runs for 1 yr with some specific rules around the type of shares that can be invest in ie they must have a minimum market cap, or must have a share price above XX cents, or must be held for a certain period. I know this may reduce the number of shares that can be purchased, and may not be to the traders/punters liking, but it may be more aligned to the general Strawman community values. Just a thought.

4

Bear77
3 years ago

I don't want to pre-empt Andrew's reponse here, but I would imagine that there are certain constraints around sponsorship arrangements with these comps. For instance, they might require a shortish period for the competition to run so they can maintain viewer interest (not participant interest, which is a given). However, if the sponsors were up for it, I think a 6 month or 12 month comp would be great.

6

Strawman
3 years ago

Definitely want a longer time frame next time. What we'll do is send out a survey beforehand to get a sense of community preferences. Sponsorship does often require some compromise, but we'll see if we can't think a bit outside the box on that front.

9
Strawman
3 years ago

IMPORTANT UPDATE 

We've had to make some tough decisions this week in relation to the trading rules; both for our $10,000 competition and for Strawman in general.



As the Strawman Classic competition progressed, it became apparent that there was a way to exploit some short comings in the trading system.



Specifically, for stocks trading near the lowest possible price step on the ASX ($0.001) we were often receiving inaccurate closing prices. Although these differences were tiny in dollar terms, they were significant in percentage terms. Combined with a limitation of our volume matching algorithm, it enabled users to place trades at prices and volumes that could not have been realised in real life. In turn, it was possible to build substantial, yet ultimately unrealistic gains.



It's important to stress that users who pursued this strategy have done nothing wrong. They operated within the rules of the system, using the prices and volumes supplied, and were simply pursuing a strategy they (rightly) believed would give them the best chance of winning the competition. Frankly, it was quite a clever and resourceful tactic. 



That being said, after a lot of internal debate, we felt that this approach was not within the spirit of the competition. The idea behind the Strawman Classic was to recognise and reward the best trader -- not the person most adept at discovering and exploiting system weaknesses. 



As such, we're introducing a new rule that will prevent Strawman users from purchasing stocks that are trading below 2c. This limitation still ensures that the vast majority of ASX stocks remain in play, while effectively closing the existing loophole.



What's more controversial is that we've also decided to apply this rule retrospectively. Given the significant gains this tactic has yielded, not applying our rule change to historical trades would be the same as doing nothing at all. That is, those that have successfully prosecuted this strategy are so far in front as to be effectively uncatchable. 



The next step was then to decide exactly how far back do we go. We could just apply this rule change to the start of the competition, but then we're selectively targeting only newer Strawman members. If this exploit isn't fair, why should we ignore it for more established users?



So, without wanting to play favourites, we've applied this rule change back to the dawn of time. 



The good news is that, after extensive testing, we've seen that this makes no impact to the vast majority of users. Prior to the competition very few investors were playing around with such small stocks anyway. It also has no bearing on the Strawman Index, which has never purchased a stock below the 2c threshold. 



With over 13,000 users on Strawman, it's virtually guaranteed that a few people will be disadvantaged (although it's also worth pointing out that others will get a benefit from erasing trades in penny stocks that resulted in a loss).


In the interest of fairness, we're happy to review things on a case by case basis. If you believe this change has unfairly impacted your returns and rankings, you can email us (admin@strawman.com) and we'll take a closer look. So long as we can see that the deleted trades were made in good faith, we'll happily reinstate them at the lower bound of the new trading rules (that is, 2c). 



We understand this situation is far from ideal, but we trust that you can see our decisions are guided entirely by a desire to preserve the integrity and legitimacy of the competition. The reality is, if we did nothing, we'd still face plenty of ire -- just from a different set of users.



After all is said and done, the competition leaderboard, as of the end of trade this week, still retains many of the previous top performers. And these contestants have built gains that would have been replicable in the real world.

 

To be clear -- this change has already been actioned. So you can check out the leaderboards and your own profile to see if there's any change.

Please feel free to share your perspectives in this thread. (For those that would prefer to skip the discussion, we'd encourage you to adjust your newsfeed filters and turn off forum posts)

34

Strawman
3 years ago

Hi fruugsy -- ideally yes. The initial goal was to get a better data points from S&P (in terms of prices and volumes), but after a LOT of back and forth that proved untenable. It's a shame as that would have been the best solution. Sadly, that wasted a bit of time. As for a comp reset, there are set agreements with our partners that we needed to adhere to (relating to studio time, marketing budgets etc etc). All that being said, we plan on running regular comps in the future -- and ones which apply many of the lessons learnt from this experience.

7

Strawman
3 years ago

Hi Unict -- What we did was simply delete any trade that was initiated at a price <2c. As such, that capital was never employed and will be available to trade going forward. You may notice some pending trades at sub-2c limits, but these will be deleted soon and the associated cash released (you can manually delete in the meantime if you wish). Thanks for understanding.

7

Strawman
3 years ago

No worries unict. Can you send us an email and provide as much detail as possible and we'll investigate. Admin@strawman.com Prices/trades update around 5pm Sydney time, but in certain instances can take longer if data isn't available for some reason. It's rare, but we have a variety of "mop up" functions that run overnight to catch these.

4

Hi Goingsailing, I think it's incredibly difficult to run a comp like this and have to make the difficult decisions Andrew has had to make over the past week. I can't imagine it's been easy. As for moving the goalposts which many members have claimed on here, this isn't the case. The rules of Strawman have always been if the volume didn't trade on the ASX then your trade wouldn't go through on Strawman. As Andrew has stated above there was a glitch and this is why he's had to make the changes - to fix this. Anyone was welcome to read the rules and familiarise themselves with how Strawman works and trades go through. Members building up positions in growth stocks were not at an advantage to new members. Standings are percentage based and you can take a maximum 20% position in any one stock. This rule isn't any different to existing members and Andrew stated if someone was starting with a larger than 20% position in a single stock they would take this into account when determining final rankings. Maybe there are some key lessons here but instead of for admin I'd suggest for users to have a better grasp of the rules and how the platform works before going into the competition.

11
Noddy74
3 years ago

Surely this now qualifies as a -gate. Strawgate ?

9