It depends on when you started to read this thread, what is almost 3 years old. I guess you are asking for a TL;DR: version of 2000+ posts. The company was extremely wishy washy and not straight forward in the beginning. (for example the LTP wasn't even acknowledged) When we asked a simple question they sidestepped it. The rules have been ever changing, sometimes in a monthly basis. Now here we have to finally give credit to them because they must be listening to this thread, most of our criticism have eventually turned out to be right because they made a change following them. 3 years ago the Combine rules just didn't make sense at all. It had such an incredibly stupid rules that looked like they were designed to make you fail, instead of trying to filter out bad traders. Now you probably ask me for an example here so I will bring up the infamous "winning trade length vs. losing trade length" I never heard before characteristic, that nobody should give a fuck and makes you look like somebody wants to fuck you for no other reason but to take your Combine fee. They had too many and too stupid rules that could be sidestepped anyway, thus they were annoying and worthless. One of the most recent change is the you no longer have to be profitable in all traded instrument. Excellent change, we bitched about that 3 years ago already. So as you see, TST is slowly coming around. Now there are still fishy details about the Combine for example there is no reason to have 5 of them. There is absolutely no difference between the 100K and the 150K Combines, but you said you want to do the highest one, which will set you back an extra $50. So let me save you 50 bucks and follow my advice, do the 100K if you really want to scale in and out. Another fishy detail is the obvious overstatement of the account's value. Who are they trying to fool? I guess it is you, who doesn't know better. Oh yeah, I have to assume you know that even though you paid for and finished a Combine with 15 contracts, your Live max. contract size will be 3 at the start. etc.etc.etc. One last thing, they are really not giving us any hard numbers. Promoting a rather irrelevant number of new Live traders just makes the company look scammy. But people like you eat it up, so it is a good PR tool. Anyhow we are looking forward your try, and you might want to read the whole thread over the weekend. Good luck and good speed.
You nailed it: if someone needs discipline from an external source (like a manager at a prop firm), TopStep Trader is a valid option. It is not, however, any different from a $5-10K stand-alone futures account aside from the fact that you can't cheat on their rules. The negativity comes mostly from their combine names such as "$150,000" which are not actually indicative of account size (even with very conservative leverage) and the live account scaling plan which effectively ruins their advantage vs stand-alone. I used to be a strong advocate for them, but the numbers just don't add up. I forgave the misleading combine "names", however for me the last straw was when they switched to the continuous-only format, for which people no longer have any hope of being refunded if successful. This to me, transformed TST from a funding source for small traders into a monthly subscription education/discipline service, which I'm not in the market for.
I share your perspective that the changes are mostly a good thing. TST certainly listen, and make amendments where plausible within their business model, and are particularly responsive and cooperative when observations and criticism is offered. Perhaps "finally" from your perspective. Others seem to have been saying that for a couple of years. That's a curious perspective, given the large numbers of people who succeeded, even back then. I think that was probably a method of identifying traders who know how to cut losses short, rather than holding on to losing positions and praying for rain. When you're trying to decide whom to fund often on the basis of a relatively small number of trades, I can see an impression gleaned from that criterion being potentially useful. Maybe it turned out not to be, since they changed their mind about it. All part of the learning process, doubtless. Let's not forget that TST were the first to offer this exact business model, and they doubtless had something of a learning-curve, along with others. Personally, I think 3 would be better and simpler than 5, but it's kind of amusing the way you contrive to make even a comment on their offering flexibility and choice sound like a criticism; talk about a "back-handed compliment". All their numbers were independently audited and published a year or so ago; perhaps they're happy to let others speak of their progress and successes there? There's certainly no shortage of people doing so, however you look at it. That's very subjective and interpretative. You're criticising them, in your observations above (a) for not publishing enough details, and at the same time (b) for publishing information you find irrelevant which leads you to believe that it looks "scammy". I guess it shows to show that some folk are absolutely determined to nitpick and find fault, however responsive and open TST is, and whatever they do. Surprise, surprise.
Yes london kid blew up in the FTP. There are no guarantees in this business but my recent form has been good.
You raise an important point. I do agree that labelling each combine with a monetary figure isn't a great idea. A funded trader day 1 has to follow the scale up plan so any monetary figure assigned to a combine level doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That said the scale up plan does make sense, when you join a prop firm you are allocated risk limits depending on your track record which can then be increased as your account grows. It looks like the $10k combine you have to scale from a 1 lot, $30k & $50k combines you scale up from a 2 lot & the $100k & $150k combines you scale up from a 3 lot.
I must be missing something here with reference to you saying their is no difference between the 100k and 150 combines. perhaps I am. So the way i viewing the different combines at the funded trader stage is the following: 10k combine - max 1 lot start - 1k max drawdown 30k combine - max 2 lot start - 1.5k max drawdown 50k combine - max 2 lot start - 2k max drawdown 100k combine - max 3 lot start -3k max drawdown 150k combine - max 3 lot start - 4.5k max drawdown The funded trader rules do say that once your account balance hits $10,000 you can request more buying power so it looks like you can go on to trade just as much size in a funded account starting from a 10k combine compared to a 150k combine, you will just have to scale up slower from a 1 lot rather than a 3 lot. You said there is no difference between the 100k and 150k combines. My understanding is that the difference is in the max drawdown. In both combines you have to start from a 3 lot so no difference in initial buying power however with the 150k combine you are allowed a higher 4.5k drawdown. For me personally I will likely be trading 3 contracts on a 30 tick stop. $900 risk per trade on oil. The 100k combine would allow me 3 trades at this risk before max drawdown, the 150k combine would allow me 5 trades at this risk before drawdown. So the difference for me is that you are allowed more drawdown. I do understand that from day 10 of funded your account cannot go below the initial starting balance - scalperjoe keeps banging on about this.
ha I was just winding up Dest when I said that. My best week to date is $20k, best day is $6390, so I am by no means a big hitter but i can trade. I will do the topstep thing purely as a fun challenge plus it is a transparent way of showing if you can trade.
After visiting TST's website I had to rewrite my response. *[did you mean Live trading?] You are mixing up Live trading and Combines. In the Combines there are no differences, one is the exact 1.5 multiple of the other in every category. Now in Live trading it is possible that the guy finishing the 150K Combine gets the 4.5K max. DD, compared to the 3K max. DD of the 100K Combiner. Doesn't really makes sense since both start out with 3 contracts max. and the former trader is supposed to be better, so why would they allow him to lose more? But that is what their website says, so I guess, the extra 50 bucks in fees buys more max. DD in the Live account. Also there is a slight difference in the scaling up plan.