Yes, and he also posted THIS statement: "The reason for sharing this trade is to show you what a thin razor's edge you are walking trading a TST combine or LTP." As we've both stated, the combine number is "irrelevant" as it's only the first step. Sure, it's a good way to get a funded account. The key then is to actually follow the parameters within the LIVE account to actually make money. In theory, passing the combine and/or LTP increases the probability that one will generate profits in the live account. So far in 2015 they are funding new traders, which is a good thing. The question is, how many funded in 2014 are back in the combine due to the parameters in the live account?
The 150k combine has a no weekly loss limit, only a daily max loss limit and total draw. The 150k live account adds a weekly loss limit in addition to a daily and a max draw. So even if you had a "record" for the "highest earning combine" the factors to measure are within the LIVE 150k account, starting with max 3 lots, and adhering to a $600/day draw. And I think most will agree with your other comment regarding it being a learning tool.
TST website states there is a rule for first 10 days of funded combines.a trader should have achieved an average net P&L greater than $0 for each product traded.what if a trader want to trade 6 products and can not achieve net P&L greater than zero for each products during first 10 days? do they give him extra time (like continuous combine) or bring him back to LTP or combine ?
i'm asking about this rule (days 1-10) in above question http://help.topsteptrader.com/knowledgebase/articles/451701-funded-trader-rules
This company is not into funding traders, but into taking their money with the combine and mentoring. I mean, isn't it obvious ? How many traders have they funded since 2011 ? They have no stats on the site. Like this guy says, Patak is selling dreams.http://www.jltrader.com/2015/01/29/get-funded-a-pitch-of-the-trading-dreams-factory/
The CEO has said that over 300 have been funded.............................. but won't disclose funded trader results for fear of competitors "poaching TST talent".......... He said this on Bigmikes last year. I would like to know how many of 300 manage to stay funded. I would also like to know about the performance of funded traders and of course if any trader at TST making a living from trading? But I doubt those will be forthcoming........... LOL
With the rules of the combine, if you are negative on just one product and positive on the other 5, and met all of the other parameters, you would still "fail" the combine. So my guess is it's no different in the live account, which means you'd be sent back to the combine. Besides, why would anyone even consider trading 6 products in the first 10 days in the live account? It's hard to keep track of even 2 or 3 with the parameters/rules, lol!
I think it works in BOTH the trader's interest and the partner's interest to give some feedback regarding the stats of the funded traders. When I asked about it, the answer (which makes sense) is the partner firm is private, and their stats are proprietary information, thus has no obligation to share it. However, I think it's a good marketing campaign to at least allow the funded traders to appear on Squawk and share whatever information they feel comfortable with, or for the partner to at least give an overview of the percentages. Regarding "poaching TST talent" I don't see any competing firm coming even close to offering the TST model. The way one should approach the model is by the simple question: After passing the combine, can I trade within the live account parameters long enough to start taking checks? Since the rules of the live account are clearly spelled out, it's up to the TRADER to determine whether or not they can meet the objectives.
That is incorrect. Let's see the partner's interest: 1. The poaching of talents is a legit concern. 2. The truth is probably ugly (I would guess less than 10% surviving 2 years), so why would they advertise that this is most likely not a long term success story? 3. Successful traders who don't know better could have an eyeopening informational experience, but as long as they don't know better (they think they get the best deal at TST) they will stick around... 4. Even profitable traders quit (we had a poster here who did) after they figure that the money is not worth the effort/time invested.... Now let's see the trader's interest: 1. If they have just so-so results, secrecy is better for them. It still sounds good that they have been a live trader for X months, even if they haven't made much. 2. Just like traders outside of TST, most don't do full disclosure, so we shouldn't expect TST either. 3. If they are losing traders, secrecy works better for them. 4. If their numbers are published (even anonymously) that could put extra pressure on them. Now if the Live trader wants to get a better deal, or wants to use TST as a springboard to jumpstart his carrier, then yes, publicizing his profits would be advantageous. And that is exactly the reason why TST contractually make them swore to secrecy...
Hi guy's, been interested in topstep ever since I heard about it, but thinking about it a bit more has made me realize the problem with the whole thing. (I was advised to post it here, since I had best chance of getting honest opinions from elitetrader rather that other forums.) Hi guys, I wanted to get some feedback to help me try to understand something a little bit better. A funded account has a maximum draw down limit. If you hit that draw down, you lose the account. 10,000 account, maximum drawdown is $1,000 30,000 account, maximum drawdown is $1,500 50,000 account, maximum drawdown is $2,000 100,000 account, maximum drawdown is $3,000 150,000 account, maximum drawdown is $4,500 It uses a trailing stop style feature where if you build up your account, you can create some cushion. In otherwords, if you generate $10,000 in the account, you can lose that $10,000 and still stay funded. You just cannot bring under the certain amount (example, 50k account has 2k draw-down limit. If you ever get under $48,000, you will lose the account) ---------------------------- The Rub ---------------------------- Ok, so now lets discuss something. We all know the rule that we should risk a maximum of 1-2% of our equity on any trade idea. Lets take the $50,000 account provided by topsteptrader for example. 1% of $50,000 = $500. But TopStep only allows you a maximum draw down of $2,000. So if you risk 1% of 50,000 you will lose the account if you make 4 wrong trades. So its like you are risking 25% of your account. To avoid this, one would want to reduce this risk back down to the 1%-2% level. So logically what this actually means, is that the 1% rule should be applied not to the total account size, but to the maximum draw-down that they allow you. So 1% of $2000 = $20 One contract on the ES is ($12.50). Add another $4-5 for the transaction fees and your looking at $16.50-17.50 lost every trade you put on. Add a little bit more because of slippage and you can basically round it off to $20 per round turn. So you cannot even trade 1% of your max drawdown, because you lose 1% every trade you take with 1 contract. So you have to trade at least 2%. So my question boils down to this. What is the point of working so hard to get "funded" with places like topsteptrader or any propshops that let you trade their money, when in reality you don't have access to the full capital. You only have access to your maximum drawdown. Granted one can argue that the maximum drawdown is a trailing one. But that doesn't really change much in the grand scheme of things. If you make $25,000 on your $50,000 account, you have made 50% (which might seem achievable) However to make that $25,000 using good money management (ie risking 1-2% of your max-drawdown because that is the size of your account in reality), you would need to make 1150% ($2000 + 1050% = 25,000) When you look at it like that, it no longer seems realistic. So my question is what is the point of even trying to get a "funded account" with topsteptrader? When you factor in the restrictive rules (eg you cant swing trade because you cannot hold through closes), and the fact that the equity-partner is taking 20% of the profits you make, wouldn't it be more logical to simply open your own tiny account and trade with leverage? So instead of going through all the hastle of trying to get "funded", just open your own tiny account. You would be able to trade a $2,000 futures account with the same money management rules as you would for a 50,000 "funded" account, because the funded account's true value is simply its maximum drawdown. But the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. What am I missing here? I don't think people quite realize that if you plan on trading with realistic money management, these funded accounts are nothing more than tiny undercapitalized trading accounts where someone else takes 20% of the profits. Is there something I am missing here? Simply put, for all intents and purposes, the topsteptrader "funded" accounts should be advertised as a $500, $1000, $1500, $3000, and $4500 accounts, since that is all you can realistically trade (ie your drawdown limits). If you try to exceed those amounts, you enter the realm of blowing up, regardless of edge. (and blowing up your funded account means getting below drawdown limit and having the account pulled). Simply put, we think of places like topsteptrader as finally giving us a chance to be well funded so we can actually trade and make a living. But in reality it is the exact same as the guy who throws 2 or 3 grand into an account and hopes to "build it up" and live off it. Literally ZERO diffence. In fact the guy who throws 2 or 3 grand into the account is in a better position (he can keep the full 100% of profits, rather than 80%, and he can trade any way he wants to be profitable. Example he can swingtrade and hold overnight etc)