I guess that makes you a market satan (charlatan), as Iâve seen no evidence that you or your well-connected friends have a sustainable edge in the markets, yet you appear as the angel of light to save the noobs from those who have demonstrated via live trade calls and positive expectancy setups (not patterns, but actual setups which are price behavior patterns in supportive context that can be applied to months or years of past market action via replay or applied day after day in real time) evidence thatâs more valid than blotters and statements (which can be faked on a massive scale â Madoff) and stories of BSDâs who had a non-replicable streak of luck during certain unusual market conditions.
Mav, it's always a pleasure having a conversation about trading with you. We don't always agree on everything, but I enjoy the open-minded dialogs regardless The only reason I spent so much time on this topic is that I cannot figure out the logic of this one single issue. It seems to me from every angle I can think of, if the profit mandate was not tied to a short-term time constraint, a greater number of successful combines would be the result. I never entered any combine to "win it" per se... qualifying for the next step was the only objective. If I cannot readily do that, then I'm not interested and no harm done. I do still receive email notices and notice an absence of recently funded traders. As I've said so often before, it is TST's program to structure any way they deem fit. I'm just perplexed by that one lone point, it all. If they ever change those parameters and/or permit the trading for Russell 2000 which is consistently dynamic enough to overcome current parameters, I'll sign up again.
1) You have to demonstrate some ability to make money within a specified timeframe, the shorter the better. Imagine a 50-day Combine and missing a proportionately larger profit number on the last day and then trying to muster the confidence to go through another 50-day "market gauntlet". :eek: 2) Some acknowledgement has to be given to the "financial backer" for TopStep. They want to earn a reasonable amount of the profit-split while the funded trader does too, given the "constraint" of the relatively small account size that is being traded. Instead of the initial 60-40 split, 90-10 would certainly be better but probably aint ever gonna happen.
I don't make any success claims. I have made money and I have lost money in the markets. I'll be happy to change my mind. Can you demonstrate in real time, even a youtube video would do! See I WANT TO BELIEVE-- but all evidence I have seen is against it.
That sounds plausible... except for the fact that no such parameters exist in funded status. You might make a huge gain in the combo, then take 50 days to make 5% return once funded status. Again, the different parameters here seem incongruous to me. But it's more a curiosity on my part than anything else.
1) Is it available via a custom combine? 2) TopStep might receive "incentives" from the CME to only trade CME/CBOT/NYMEX contracts. 3) To make EUREX, ICE and other exchanges available would probably involve additional data fees for each exchange that ALL combiner's would have to pay, even if they only trade CME contracts. It keeps the cost low but does restrict the universe of what one can trade.
I have noticed this too. We are at week 14th of the year, and I don't think they passed more than 10-12 new traders. I assume they would still parade them around, so I wonder, what is the reason behind the shrinking trading force?
lull in volatility... in particular contracted ranges for CL intraday. Had two-three weeks of great volatility across the board, otherwise only NQ and TF offer consistent intraday expanded ranges so far.
Russell is not available in combines and I assume you are correct with the added fees, etc. CME and CBOT have numerous products, ICE only has one of real popularity. Makes sense to me