From an email in response to a question about continuous combines going forward... ------------------ we are no longer allowing any accounts to be traded after 20 days. -------------------------- That makes it way harder if you now have to pick the exact right days to trade (versus the possibility of continuous and having a couple scratch days that dont put the pressure on to make up the profit on others)
I think he was being sarcastic. I wouldn't call it "scam" even though it does not suit me in its current form, but I see they are making changes, so who knows, maybe eventually it will become much more to my liking. OTOH, if they lied to you to get your money, then it's a scam. But I am not aware of anything of this sort going on here.
It feels that way,indeed.Or how come they missed such crusial point that your DD would be cut in a half if you chose the extended trading period? Acciden,right?
TST seems to have themselves a pretty sweet system. Let's assume (conservatively) 1 in 10 traders pass, and I say conservatively, because you don't JUST have to make money, you have to jump through a few hoops doing it: Draw down limits and "Each product traded during the Combine must have a Trading Average greater than $0 and meet at least TWO of the performance requirements listed below: Overall Average Win greater than Overall Average Loss Overall Average Win Duration greater than Overall Average Loss Duration Total Win percentage of 45 or greater" Suuure. Let's assume you're one of the lucky ten (which is probably closer to 1 in 20 or more considering plenty probably break even or don't hit the min profit point) They give you $1500 worth of rope. The max daily loss is the same as the weekly loss.. which is kind of weird.. because you could be stuck out of the game by Tuesday... and spend 3 days brooding? Either way, you basically got 4 other people's entry fees to trade as they happily pocket the huge amount of failed entrants.. in this scenario we'll say the other 6 around $2k for letting people lose paper money. All in all, I think it's a horrible system for anyone besides a really good trader and a really bad one. Why? Because a really bad trader is leashed to only losing $350, whereas if they funded a $5k account they'd probably eat through most if not all of it before realizing how inexperienced they are. As for a really good trader, I'm not really sure how you'd be a seasoned pro and only having a few hundred to your name... but I guess divorce courts can be nasty? These performance hoops which might as well be a carny ring toss event stomps out most people under I'd say at least 3 years trading experience. So basically it's really bad for an intermediate trader. You're better off saving your pennies and opening your own account. If you're trading on your own you keep 100% of the profits, and likely could do better w/ their commission rates. The main benefit you get from them is leverage and if you increase your leverage through profits/experience you'll probably do better anyway. Especially if you're an intermediate trader that's slightly positive to break-even. The deal is pretty bad. I'd sell that to anyone any day. Along with lottery tickets and Austin's trading manual ; ) kidding.
My apologies for the delayed report... although there isn't a whole lot to be reported. Last Friday I was without internet service for most of the day as my repaired office hardware (lightening strike) and new internet provider hookup clashed mightily. When I had connectivity it was down more than up before we finally took it all down and service techs made repairs on Saturday. I was away at the summer camp we share all weekend which will be the case most weekends spring thru fall for us now. There is no cell phone, internet or tv service there and it might be years (if ever) before that changes. Which is a good thing Monday's return to work saw more of the same... internet conflicts which are now resolved. Couple all of that with the lowest volume emini day in 2013 (so far) to extend more than a week of the deadest emini price inaction for this year, and the point of continuing this particular combine effort is moot. I'm behind but catching up on trading as well as non-market related business tasks, got a lot on my personal plate here for the next week or two. But following that, I'll run a $100k combine on my dime trading CL only and we'll complete the partial project started here. This week and next I am turning 5-lots CL and perhaps 10 at times in free-trade situations. If partial fills and slippage are not a real concern, then I'll be real serious about sizing up CL trading efforts. No matter how many contracts the ES will permit to fill, a 7pt or 8pt entire session chop range is untradable for directional traders. So it's either size up in CL or remain small-lot size and leave things at that. In any event, I will be back here with a 100k combine project trading CL only and we'll see how that all plays out
I'm in somewhat agreement to those opinions above. The limited risk factor daily is skewed from the minimal upside objective. In the case of a $100k 20-day combine, the upside minimum goal is $8500 for that entire trading month. 12 months x 8500 = 102,000 or greater than +100% pace on "account" but the drawdown limit is -2% daily and -3% overall. So that's asking for the leverage performance of +100% annual while handcuffed to -2% daily draw. It is admittedly an unbalanced skew that no one can dispute. Aggressive funds that shoot for +100% gains warn participants of potential for -20% to -50% drawdowns in the process. Leverage cuts both ways like a see-saw. imo the benefit of combines is litmus test for new traders, who can save themselves $1,000s lost by spending $190 to test their skills. The benefit to veteran traders is unlimited upside potential in trade size. If a successful combine earns the merit of funded status AND said trader can use large contract size, then it's appealing. But for trading something illiquid and working small-lot size? That's best left for fledgling traders in their development from struggling to successful status. In my case I'm interested in funded status for future potential of trading large size. Along with that end goal comes the skewed balance of hitting lofty short-term performance goals with relatively tight loss restrictions at the time in trial phase. I'm aware of that ahead of time and we all can choose to try or pass accordingly. I have no problem with TST making a business model out of this whole process if in fact there is a benefit at the end for aspiring traders who reach the goals. I am on record as saying that elimination of all time limits to reach upside minimum profit objectives while keeping loss limits in place would naturally result in more successful combines by removal of skewed performance pressures. But we have the rules, we know the parameters and it's free choice to participate or stand aside accordingly