Well - the way I see it they're providing a service and opportunity which they should be compensated for. Of course they are earning money on failed traders. I would rather focus my energy on the true snake oil salesmen who are selling courses and lofty promises. Does E2T or TST do that? If so, I would share your skepticism. As I said - I have not looked into those programs in detail, so I don't know.
True in practice that rarely happens. I've noted the stats on how ridiculous these combine risk/rewards are on another thread i cant remember which one. It one can consistency pass these at the same risk parameters on a real account then you have a money printing machine.
And this is the crux of those services, they can't lose. If they truly believed in training up beginners and picking the profitable ones, do you think they would market some fun paper trading accounts? Hell no, they would be funded with hundreds of millions and employ those profitable traders that would generate unheard profits. Not happening. Those services sell something a beginner can do himself, hence there is very little value in the paper trading account or other ancillary services. The main justification for those horrendous monthly fees are the prospect of some unrealistic hopes. Just wanted to share my two cents.
I can pass the evaluation with skill, i can not win the lottery with skill. Again, not saying these services are good/useful or the way to go, in my opinion it just isn't a fair comparison to a lottery. A beginner trader also needs pure and utter luck to make it in a live account if he has no experience, if he can make it in a live account he can possible make it with one of these services. Passing one of these evaluation accounts might require even more skill than surviving in a live account due to the strict requirements. Of course you can pass it with luck, but you will not be able to keep it long term with luck.
Is that really true...? I remember that when TST first launched they had a time goal as well, i.e., make X dollars in 10 days. This alone was a huge red flag. I know they have since removed that and the last time I checked their requirements seemed realistic. The thing about trading and day trading in particular is that you're basically successful or not. There's no middle ground. If you need to sit through a very deep drawdown you won't be funded, but you won't make it with a real account either.
The lotto aspect of this is you put in a small fee and expect a larger return for this to make sense for a business they have to have an edge. $100 for $1500 thats a 15x return for the trader for every 1 funded trader 15 have to fail to break even and more for them to stay in business. These combine companies put traders in a simulated account even after passing their "consistency rules" because they know more than likely they will lose. oneup has a restriction on how long you have to be in the funded account before you can make a withdrawal , I dont know about E2T withdrawal restrictions but i know you start in a sim account so no real money is at risk. Topstep is the only company that when you goto a funded account its real money at risk although now TST has added the option for traders to goto a live sim account with a max withdrawal of $5k(again trading in sim is actually a slight edge to the trader since your orders dont affect the market particularly in thin products)
You are getting hung up on differing properties that are irrelevant. The point of the comparison was the probability of making the cut, admittedly the chances are higher than winning the lottery. But the point was on unrealistic expectations. Your point is similar to saying that the comparison is poorly chosen because for the lottery you need to purchase a ticket in person vs here you can do it online (assuming lottery tickets can only be purchased in person). This might be true but would be an irrelevant to my point property. I think you still do not quite get my point. Exactly because of all those terms and conditions, the chances of making it are extremely slim. Why? Because not a single person with skill would pay for this charade. Hence, you end up with some bloody beginners who bring to the table hardly any skills in this arena. That spells probabilities of success that can fairly be compared to lottery tickets imho.
And who said you get paid? There are tons of horror stories out there of trading outfits that refused to pay or went under any given day. And those were trading arcades, purely set up for the purpose of trading. Anyway, you seem to see the purpose of their existence, I don't. I am ok to disagree.
I am hung op on differing properties that are irrelevant while you are comparing a business model that has nothing to do with luck to a lottery? Chances of making it are not extremely slim, these rules aren't really that difficult unless you don't know what you are doing and or taking to much risk. That is exactly my point, you need skill to make it. So obviously it isn't a service for new traders, it isn't advertised as one either. All you guys are saying is inexperienced traders are very unlike to succeed from these services, well duh, they will not make it in their own funded account either if they have no experience. These services aren't here to help traders get successful, they are here to offer you a funded account if you can pass their evaluation process. Most inexperienced traders who are blowing out their own account would probably be better of with one of these companies since they would only lose their monthly subscription instead of their entire live account.