the challenge with low vol = low range is, price moves plenty far enough to take out stops on the risk side but does not move far enough for favorable reward. A 6-point range means price churned sideways thru most of that, a 12pt range usually means price churned thru 4pts on the low end and 4pts again on the high end. It forces you to be pinpoint precise on the one or maybe two intraday moves in the middle. Not much opportunity to be right enough to prevail overall. You take one trade and get stopped out for -1.5pts. Take another trade and scratch, another trade -1.5pts and a fourth trade goes +4 points in favor. What did you accomplish? Not much. These conditions won't last forever, but they are here for now. ultra-low volatility and no-range sessions are why traders are just treading water or making sloooow progress for now. In the futures world, there are few day-trade alternatives to turn towards. Used to be CL was always a monster. That died from what it was. Now it's pretty much the Russell unless you want to get hammered around in gold, natural gas, etc. on the other hand, if you adopt a swing-trade mentality, then you can trade anything. whatever futures markets TST offers are fair game. Just mind the open - close - reopen sequences and hold overnights. Matter of fact, if I did a combo again, that's pretty much what my approach would be.
I do not believe Pulsar and/or TST are necessarily scams. They are probably legitimate businesses. Just that the barriers to be successful are rather high with such a tight leash. It's still possible. But as I've said before, a trader who can successfully meet those metrics critera on a consistent basis do not need backers since the metrics are such good R/R. Then there's the plus of being a call option via trading OPM. totally legit
It's been a while since I looked, but anyone who is so grossly overestimates their account value (100K for 1 ES contract?????) is fishy in my book. And they only charge $450 for the interview... Anyhow, the point is moot because as it seems their trading career program has been closed since last June.... They say they already have enough traders. Yeah right. They wanted you to make 4K dollars trading 1 ES contract in a month!!! (That is 4 ES points profit every day) As a comparison, TST only wants you to make 1K in a 20 days period if you only use 1 contract... The whole website seems abandoned to me... Actually, they gave up on recruiting 4 years ago: Posted in Nov 2010: "'......Due to the high volume of applications recently received we decided to put our Trading Careers Programme on hold until further notice..... '
Look who is back? I want to trade Austin, because he is so predictable... So what? TST only ask you to make 1 ES per day, and anyway, your incorrect statement was about the average range of the ES. You are proving a point nobody contested... If you are wrong, just admit it. I know, it takes an adult to do that...
Wrong about exactly what? The subject matter of this thread is based on the OP inquiring about validity of TST, others who have participated in the program sharing their experiences, and others still who have not participated offering input as well. I've stated my current position plenty more than enough times... I am not motivated to do any combines recently or currently myself. If they offered my preferred symbol right now, that'd be different. If I change my mind going forward about any other symbols, I'll send you an email. Still have your conversations you sent me in my email file. More importantly, nobody makes 1pt ES per day for ten days straight. You either make more than that or lose money in a given day, that's reality. Part of the conversation here debates why more combine traders fail to pass the metrics. I've stated my ideas for possible solutions to that, others disagree, that's why this conversation continues. Once again, if you see an easy opportunity with ES for your further combine efforts, have at it and good luck. In my case if I considered doing the same, it would be from a basis of swing trading and not purely intraday executions. "Trading" involves a helluva lot more than intraday only, and TST accommodates overnight or multi-session holds.
i think TST is hiding some vital information by intention : website focuses on combine parameters while funded junior traders have a BIG ISSUE which is called "weekly loss limit" ,in some cases weekly loss limit is equal to daily loss limit which means : a trader can not loose (permitted amount of loss) even two days per week and must be in profit 4 out of 5 days. the 30k account may be an option (i think other combines will not work by passage of time, i'm damn sure) because weekly loss limit is not set . if someone want to trade that 30k account he can not use 3 contracts consistenty because of daily loss limit.he need to use 1 contracts. why someone should pay 175$+50$(customized combine fee) for real buying power of 1 contracts ? and also split profit of that 1 contract with TST. there are some brokers who need just 1k for intraday CL/GC or 300$ for ES/NQ.self funded account would be a better choice. i think they earn more money from funded traders commissions as well as deposists. their actual buying power of a 30k account is equal to 700 -1500 $ account. they simply make fool of traders by saying a funded 30k account and make interviews with those people.if i'm not right please explain and tell me why i am not right!
Sure, I can poke holes all over your theories. For one, you are missing some key points here. Once a guy is funded, TST has ZERO, repeat ZERO ability to generate revenue from that trader until they fund them because the combines are now all free. So it's pointless for them to try to block these guys from funding because technically it's costing them money at least on the software license and the trader is no longer paying them for any service. So there can't be any scam or conspiracy on why they are using the weekly drawdown for junior funded traders. As for why someone should pay $175 for a 30k account. If that's not obvious to you by now then the conversation has to stop here. TST is not marketing itself to people with 100k portfolio margin accounts at IB. They are marketing themselves to people who have ZERO money. It's not that some guy can't afford to fund a 1k account at Amp Futures. It's the fact that that account at Amp is not going to cost a new trader 1k, it may cost him 25k or 50k or 100k or whatever he is going to lose. He'll go through that 1k in a week, refund it, go through that in a week, refund it and go through that in a week. I've seen guys fund 1k accounts and lose 25k or 50k of their savings. At least with the combine they are out $175 and if they qualify for rollovers won't pay another dime. But even if they don't. That's even better. Why? Because if they are actually losing money week after week after week, then it's almost a mathematical certainty they would be losing more then $175 at Amp, they would probably be dropping 1k to 2k for every $175 they give TST. That's what you guys are not getting. Look, if you have the goods, go to DRW, Chopper, ITG, TMG, HTG, these are all respectable prop firms. Bring in your resume, your track record, whatever. TST is not marketing itself to the UC grad with a degree in Economics or the guy who has a 100k account who has 3 years of consistent trading under his belt. They are marketing themselves to people who either have never traded futures before, have no money or no track record and no degree. That is a pretty big market btw and to be honest with you, it's most of ET. You guys keep acting like some kid has the choice between Goldman and TST and he is choosing TST. No, the kid who is trying to make a go at it with TST has NO other options. I mean listen to some of those youtube videos of the funded traders. There is no one there who left TMG to give TST a try. It's some kid with a few hundred bucks that is tired of working fast food because he didn't go to college and he is going to give this a shot. If anyone came up to me and asked me if they should do this, and they have, and they have NEVER traded futures before but thought it looked easy I would tell them to try this. I've said this before and I'll say it again, most guys do NOT make money trading and certainly even fewer making money intra-day futures trading. But they come to ET and read about all the billionaires that hang out here taking 5 handles a day out of the ES and think it's easy. Well, TST is perfect for those guys. If they are smart and they realize how tough it is, they will look for edge somewhere else, like where there is actual edge. They won't be trying to scalp the most efficient market in the world that is 10k up on both sides with a one tick spread.
Maverick74 your quote is logical , but it's not related to what i meant, i said their 30k combine is good(because it has no weekly loss limit) and i said other combine are not good due to the fact that weekly loss limit is about daily loss limit which means you can not have two or three losing day in a week (which is impossible in live trading in long term ) . i critisized their 50/100/150 account not their 30k and like you i said it worths but if someone already has an edge but is under capitalized he would better have an 1K deposit .if he doesnt have 1k deposit the only option is TST. again i still think when weekly loss limit is not applied to combines but is applied to junior accounts,it 's not called transparency because they say we offer same funded account like combine account.consistency with their 50/100/150 live ccount is IMPOSSIBLE due to tat fact .i really did not get which part has conflict with reality .
My point was simply that TST has nothing to gain from having the drawdown requirement in the live account. So there must be some other reason why it's there other then financial gain. I would suspect, and this is just me, that a problem that must be occurring is having guys who spent way to much time in the combine, then go live and go to town on risk. They most likely implemented that to make sure guys don't try to "make up for lost time" so to speak. That is just my theory and one that would make sense. They probably have done studies that show that when guys do have a p&l cushion they tend to take more risk then they should leaning on open p&l. I don't know. I think Crispy or someone else stated that the drawdown rule is only in effect at the beginning or until a certain threshold is met then it goes away.