Consistently high number of winning trades results from adding to losing trades and closing winning trades early. If the number of trades, stop loss, or percentage is reduced, the results are dramatically reduced. If traded at full size, a few bad trades may result in large drawdown or loss wiping out a lot of equity.

I am sure the subscribers for 2d will crash and burn; but, 2d will survive for another trade. The system reminds me of Pipalert.

I'm a recent joiner - 2D is a powerful system with one of the best track records and highest accuracy ratios. It is a high frequency system - so yes there are going to be a lot of trades and one has to align the time zone with that of the trader. $5/trade might seem high but depending on what lot sizes you trade yourself, and given the high sharpe, these costs are manageable. Kudos to a great system and a great trader.

The method of implementation is, in part, being driven be the way per-trade-fees are collected and performance statistics are calculated. This is to the detriment of the subscriber. Two points of note: Money management. The methods adds to losing trades as the market moves away from the entry level. This gives fewer losing trades (higher % winners) but also gives far greater risk and larger $ losses if market does not revert sufficiently. Fee and slippage. Winning trades are frequently closed out and immediately reopened. This causes extra slippage, brokerage and trade fees and improves the strategy statistics due to many more winning trades (but with a small gain) Look at the timestamps and prices in the trade history. A fixed monthly fee would be more appropriate here.