While I have no doubt that "only a handful of people started the [E-Mini] contest", it is very interesting to note that the gains held by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd place winners all fall within very close parameters to one another for both categories of futures trader. In fact, if you make a histogram of the results you would see that the performance across the board is pretty on par (an equality of status, level, or value; equal footing). Good trading, JJ
Or NOT.... If 151% and 16% or 154% and 33% are close parameteres for you, I have to scratch my head.... According to my math almost 10 times is not close parameters....
Probably only a handful DID start, but it is a brand new contest. One could always have traded e-minis in the futures contest, but the $20 commission discouraged daytrading. Lowering the commission to $4 for the e-mini contest should attract more people and, hence, better competition.
Not significant. $5K at risk is pocket change. 10x piss money is still piss money. None if this is significant until it "hurts somebody to be hugely wrong"... if it's less than that, it's little different from paper trading.
You are probably right and the positive- negative balance is closer to 20-80% than to 50-50% P.S.: Notable mention: 1997: Michelle Williams 1,000% But we have been here before, haven't we?
Here's how I'm looking at it: E-Mini Futures All Futures 3rd Place 16% 33% (1 level difference) 2nd Place 59% 71% (1 level difference) 1st Place 151% 154% (equal performance) The histogram levels are calculated by taking the highest value and dividing by 10, then creating the different levels as multiple of that value (15.4 in this case). The benchmark levels are: Level Number 1 15.4 2 30.8 3 46.2 4 61.6 5 77.0 6 92.4 7 107.8 8 123.2 9 138.6 10 154.0 If anyone else doesn't see it that way, it's fine. Good trading, Jimmy Jam