But seriously, if a 10 points range is zero opportunity for you, you are in the wrong business, and you definitely should take the summer months off.....
Let me rephrase that... a 7pt or 8pt or 9pt ES total range like those days truly were is not enough opportunity to meet the TST combine minimum profit objective. Secondly, not many ES traders make consistent money in such micro ranges... and not many traders in the world make money in the ES for that specific reason. Lastly, why take summer months off when the Russell posts $1,000 to $2,000+ daily ranges instead? Your suggestion lacks merit.
here is the synopsis of combine I did that was profiled in here couple years ago via soybeans and crude oil. In those ten days the account balance grew from $100,000 to $103,340,000 which is roughly +$6,600 monthly (20 sessions) or a 75% annualized return ($6,600 x 12 months) with -2270 trough drawdown in the process. now what can be made of these "results"? It has been said by failed traders that because I "failed" to pass the combine parameters, must be I cannot successfully trade. Well, is the combine some sort of black & white litmus test whether someone can trade or not? Had soybeans not gone pancake flat and actually offered normal volatility, end results might have been one dollar more than the minimum goal. Then what would that mean? Or maybe one dollar shy of the minimum goal. Then what would that mean? ** Bottom line is this: current combine structure is such that traders need normal to high volatility in their test phase to pass. That market variable is outside anyone's control. It is a whim of lucky timing. This is why you see emailed reports of traders get funded during peaks of volatility and no reports at all during periods of low volatility. For sure there is a continual number of combines run at any given time, albeit probably far fewer now than in the past. The only variable between success and failure rates is market performance during those random ten sessions each traders starts the clock.
That's like saying, "If I didn't lose, I would have won." The ever changing nature of the market is what makes day trading extremely challenging compared to a swing trader or long term trader who can wait for the exact right moment and not have to be in the market every day. I believe TST still offers customized combines where you can stretch it over a longer time period though. Regardless, here on ET there's traders who extremely rarely have losing days, year in and year out. It's quite impressive. I guess that's what we all should aspire towards instead of making excuses. I know I am.
swing trading certain instruments has advantages over day-trading, and certain instruments have disadvantages. For example, you might guess correctly that the S&P 500 is going down soon, but get stopped out several times on ES shorts near highs before the inevitable drop begins overnight while you sleep, are stopped out and flat for net losses. if swing trading were automatic, everyone would do it... now wouldn't they? lastly, that combine result was actually +$13,000 CL alone and -$10,000 ZS alone. Had I traded CL only, would have easily met all combine parameters. Instead I had to gun the ZS trades in final sessions trying to outperform in order to "pass" apart from the combine's arbitrary and irrelevant rules to trading in general, overall those day-trading results were net profitable. It still resulted in +$3,300 thru a ten-day stretch of "working" a few hours each day. Which imo makes day-trading "worth it"
Can you back this statement with anything? I know it's a popular thing to say, but I'm not convinced it's true.
If you could have, you would have, wouldn't you? And didn't you do another Combine? Was that with soybeans as well? It's like me saying, "Hadn't it been for me taking those stupid ES trades, I would have been a champion ES trader." At the end of the year, your P&L is the only thing that matters. Every guy can have lucky runs and excellence for 10 days or even months. Being profitable throughout a whole trading year in a market that's changing all the time is something completely different. Most won't reach the level where it's extremely rare to have losing days.
The question is: can anyone prove that larger TF action is really different than intra-day? Is it really easier to trade larger TFs other than due to lower trading costs in relation to average amount of ticks/points risked/taken on a trade? It's all relative... see what Vic Sperandeo wrote: "Well, after the Gulf War in January 1991, the stock market turned into the dullest market in the past 97 years (see Chapter 7), and intermediate market trading became next to impossible. So, I went back to day trading for a while." He also wrote this: "As I began to watch the ticker tape at Filer Schmidt & Company in 1968, I became in effect a day trader, and I remained one for the next 18 years. By 1986, I had developed an amazing pace: 30 trades a day in the S&P futures. I also developed high blood pressure. so I switched to trading the intermediate trend. After all. it*s not a meaningful accomplishment to become the richest man in the cemetery. In 1987. I made only 5 trades, made 168 percent on my, capital, worked out With a personal trainer five days a week, and got my health back to normalâ. My point is: depending on where in the cycle we are and what our utility is (in the sense Maverick mentioned it a few posts earlier) it may have more sense to day trade or swing or position trade... it's not like one is better or worse than another. Quite far from it.