TST provides both funding for the margin requirements as per the "scale up" rules AND maximum drawdown allowances for the first ten trading days in the live account. These do not have to be consecutive calendar days, just ten days in the aggregate. On day 11, TST only provides funding for the margin requirements of the total lot sizes as defined by the "scale up" rules. All live traders start with a "zero" starting equity balance. Only those with positive equity balances on Day 11 can continue trading. Their maximum drawdown amount will equal their equity balance. For example, on Day 11 if you are net positive equity of $500, then you will have $500 maximum to lose before being sent back to combine, etc. Therefore, the "10 day rule" is the most important rule of the LIVE account, since only those with enough positive equity balances have a chance of growing the account and taking checks.
You are not wrong, they have definitely increased the number of people being funded (i.e., defined as those who have passed two consecutive simulator exams and qualify for a live account). No, they are "causing confusion" by changing the rules from combine-FTP-live account, not by the rule changes of the combine itself.
Yes - I see what you mean about that. I agree that it would be much better if they could have one clearly stated set of rules which apply equally to Combines, to FTP's and to funded accounts.
Yes, it would be much better. However, from a marketing standpoint, what do you think would happen to the pass rates if the combine had the same rules as the LIVE account? How would it impact those taking the higher combines that have weekly loss limits? This is why quoting the number of "funded traders" has limited value, unless they start posting the stats of the account balances on Day 11. Although TST has definitely become much more transparent over the years, it's important for a new trader looking at TST for a potential income stream to remain aware of the differences between the combine-FTP-live.
If they would just relax (and tighten at the same time) their rules, I could make them good money with a 100K or 150K account. The relaxation rule would be overnights. The restriction rule would be one contract only. It would protect them, it would protect me, it would be a win-win. I'd love to give that a try. Alas TST is what it is.
While I understand why TST restricts overnights, as that puts them at unknown risk due to a gap event, I agree with your point regarding limiting lot size, at least in the beginning. That's why the "scale up" is so important, and would make sense to have that limitation in the combine.
Scalp J...I have been looking at straight futures day to day for 2 1/2 years, religiously. I have never seen a "gap event" between a close and open. There seems to be a disconnect between understanding gap events with stocks, as compared to futures? Maybe we should compare notes. Not sure what the "gap" thing really means. I figure stocks play a major part in this gap idea.
Well that's true, stocks can gap up or down on news, whereas the futures will continue trading throughout the Globex session. The ES recently hit the 5% "limit down" threshold but it wasn't a gap, since it traded down to the halt, before resuming and rallying back up. Some futures markets are more volatile than others and could be prone to larger gaps than ES (of course, I'm talking about the price difference between the close and open from one session to the next). Where would you draw the line on overnights? Since TST allows one to trade multiple products, allowing overnights requires different margin balances than day trade margin. So you'd have to propose the backers take on that risk as well.