This only reinforces the fact that the model is designed to generate revenue from combines instead of from backing trading talent. If an experienced trader can't hack it then how and the hell do you expect a poorly educated and under capitalized rookie to have any chance at all other than just getting lucky ? Look at the previous people who have passed it. The majority were scratch traders who gun it at the end when backed up against the wall with time running out and the outlier lets them pass. Why do you think they added live trader prep before going live? To weed out this crowd.
Well, do you honestly think the University of Chicago grad with a Masters in Econ is going to do a combine? No, he is stressing over which banking offer to accept at graduation. Come on, the type of person who is going after TST is going after them because the other options are not available.
Exactly .Or a University of chicago Grad who spent all his money and options on drugs hookers and booze.
Trading attracts all kinds. I think you would be surprised what kind of people have been run thru the combine. Some of the biggest dreamers I know who also failed at trading have been engineers with Mba's.
I'm not speaking about 100% of the data pool. I'm saying on avg, a guy that can f*ck a hot chic generally does. There are always exceptions, but we are dealing with sample distributions here.
I really like this argument and of course I completely agree. Don't lose your money fast to the real market, when you can lose it slowly to sim trading and dream building. It reminds me of my childhood (oh those happy days), when the guy with the van playing music told us: Hey kids, don't lose your teeth quickly to meth, when you can lose them slowly to icecream and candy!! At the end in both cases you will be out of your money/teeth.....
This logic makes absolutely no sense. If someone does a combine or two and is not successful, a majority of the guys quit. Not so with real money. Why? Behavioral economics. The same reason when people lose money in a casino they have to make it back. The combine on the other hand is a sunk cost. No matter how much money you make or lose, you can't get the money back. Yes, sure you can get a rollover, but the money itself is gone. Very different psychological factors at work here. Your journal thread was a perfect example of this. I believe you held a losing position for months that went against you 400 handles but you refused to take the loss. THAT is the difference between TST and trading.
Try trading calendar spreads, most of the firms that are making money (those i know)are doing it in calendar spreads . There are relatively very few algorithms competing. The catch is that you need really competitive transaction cost. works if you are a clearing member or have that transaction cost. Since even a marginal increase , will make the model useless. Mostly mean reverting strategies, with a lot of scratch /1 tick / 2 tick trades. Make traders do a lot of roundtrips, get rebates , rip off traders on transaction cost, to cover for risk of loss. Thats the general model.
nobody suckered me out of anything. I made a free-will choice, no different than spending more than $400 on a day out charter fishing for salmon where we caught three dinks and got seasick. In each case, I paid to play
I respectfully disagree, and if TST still offers courtesy combines in exchange for public exposure, we'll put some opinions to live fire. Everyone here makes it sound like not a single soul ever made one dime trading futures... not CTAs managing AUM, not the various individuals with certified results mentioned before, etc. Same with FOREX, btw. I'd opine the success rate => failure rate in stock trading is exactly the same as futures, as forex, as options, same across the board with no difference.