Earn 2 Trade the gauntlet

[Earn2Trade]

Nobody's asking for you guys to get rid of the trailing drawdown. We all understand as a prop firm, Helios needs to reduce their risk from traders whose only track record is a 15-day evaluation. It's the fact that Earn2Trade/Helios' trailing DD trails based on unrealized profit that's the issue here. If you need me to explain why this rule is bullshit to anyone that's not a scalper, then you clearly haven't traded for long enough or you're ignoring the probabilistic characteristics inherent in trading.



No, you did not "only" post what was written on their site. You specifically posted that in response to the previous poster's mention of TST as an alternative to Earn2Trade's trailing DD, effectively trying to insinuate that TST's trailing DD is no different from your's in the live account. You were effectively spreading misinformation, albeit unintentionally. You're just trying to backtrack after I caught you with your pants down.



Translation: Implementing a trailing DD based on only realized PnL (which benefits traders and gives them proper odds of succeeding) is clearly possible with Rithmic as evidenced by TST, but fuck that, we have no intention of changing the trailing drawdown calculation.



Yes, though it might seem like I have some kind of beef with Earn2Trade and am advertising for TST, the fact is TST has drawbacks that don't exist with E2T. They each have their pluses and negatives. The only reason why I'm vocal about this specific aspect of trading evaluations (trailing DD based on unrealized PnL) is that it's the #1 cause of failure for those attempting these trading evaluations, without contest.

It's not due to trading during economic events. It's not due to mistakenly putting on more contracts than one's allowed to. It's not due to lacking consistency or what not. No, it's overwhelmingly due to the trailing DD based on unrealized PnL.

Your chances of successfully passing a trading evaluation goes up exponentially with a trailing DD based on realized PnL, or a fixed DD like in the original Gauntlet. Hence the only evaluations I could conscientiously recommend is TST and the orginal Gauntlet (NOT the Gauntlet Mini).

Firstly, calm the heck down buddy. There's no need for vulgarities or these accusations. I didn't insinuate anything, I said it loud and clear and I'm not ashamed about it. It seems obvious from what's written on their site that their Trailing DD is no different from ours. You had the direct experience which says otherwise. I apologized for being wrong. I didn't apologize for being wrong because I was "trying to backtrack" or because you "caught me with my pants down". I apologized for being wrong because I believed I was wrong, and certainly not because the wording on their FAQ gives me any reason to believe what you say.

And thank you for the translation, but I didn't write my response in Greek. By our own statistics, the Trailing Drawdown and Daily Loss Limits are the two rules that candidates mostly fail on. It is not by far and with no contest. The two are very close. The fact of the matter is that the volume of complaints about event failures dwarfed those of the Trailing Drawdown. It was by far the rule that received the largest volume of complaints. According to our internal statistics the rule was ineffectual, so we dropped it. But, yes as I already said we have no intention of changing the Trailing Drawdown rule.

Thank you for recommending the Gauntlet. We believe it is the only offer of its kind in the market place and is a great opportunity to traders.

 

[StockTrader100k]

Most platforms can be set up to prohibit you from trading ___ amount or more in contracts--that is typically how it is set up on Topstep's funded accounts from what I hear from other traders who have accts - if you are allowed 3 and you have 3 live contracts and try to do more without closing any of the 3 it just doesn't allow it--but it doesn't fail you on your funded account

It really just comes down to the company behind the evaluation challenge accounts and funded account

The funding company can just as easily prohibit you from trading ____ or more contracts on the platform and not penalize you at all--but just simply not allow it on a platform level--you could try to add more but it wont allow it---instead of letting you type in perhaps by mistake more than the allowable amount and then gotcha- you fail--now pay your reset fee if you wish to continue or pay again to start a whole new challenge.

There is some merit in that rule as you should be able to be disciplined enough to remember how many contracts you are allowed--but on the other hand it is totally preventable on a platform level so the point is that they could--if they wanted to--in most cases---just not allow more contracts and then even if you tried to add more--you wouldnt be able to --but on the other hand you also wouldnt be failed for an innocent mistake either

I failed by trading 3 contracts by accident. I find it ridiculous since there is daily loss limit and maximum draw down. There are also other little things that may fail you, if you traded at the wrong time for example. Being from Asia, I also had constant connection problems.

With the macro futures, one can trade a mini account with a few hundred dollars fairly comfortable. If one has a winning strategy, he can grow an account very quickly. For learning traders, it's much better to trade one MES contract than a simulation account.

Macro e-mini futures make the prop firms pointless, IMHO.

 

[Earn2Trade]

There is some merit in that rule as you should be able to be disciplined enough to remember how many contracts you are allowed--but on the other hand it is totally preventable on a platform level so the point is that they could--if they wanted to--in most cases---just not allow more contracts and then even if you tried to add more--you wouldnt be able to --but on the other hand you also wouldnt be failed for an innocent mistake either

That's what the rule is there for. And all respect intended, but you can decide what is an innocent mistake when the balance comes from your own pocket.

 

[Illini Trader]

Most platforms can be set up to prohibit you from trading ___ amount or more in contracts--that is typically how it is set up on Topstep's funded accounts from what I hear from other traders who have accts - if you are allowed 3 and you have 3 live contracts and try to do more without closing any of the 3 it just doesn't allow it--but it doesn't fail you on your funded account

It really just comes down to the company behind the evaluation challenge accounts and funded account

The funding company can just as easily prohibit you from trading ____ or more contracts on the platform and not penalize you at all--but just simply not allow it on a platform level--you could try to add more but it wont allow it---instead of letting you type in perhaps by mistake more than the allowable amount and then gotcha- you fail--now pay your reset fee if you wish to continue or pay again to start a whole new challenge.

There is some merit in that rule as you should be able to be disciplined enough to remember how many contracts you are allowed--but on the other hand it is totally preventable on a platform level so the point is that they could--if they wanted to--in most cases---just not allow more contracts and then even if you tried to add more--you wouldnt be able to --but on the other hand you also wouldnt be failed for an innocent mistake either

I am surprised that E2T in their response did not tell you that they can do exactly what you have asked for. I have a limit in place right now and am limited to 1 Contract of CL in my current ongoing Gauntlet. It is a good thing because while I was in a position this morning and was not even touching my mouse as I was on my keyboard entering the entry price in a spreadsheet window and I saw on my screen "Trade Failed" at lease 2 and maybe 3 times. Rithmic once again tried to add contracts that I did not want. I have now had that happen many times over 3 Gauntlets with 2 different mouses. I have talked about this earlier in this thread. If I had not had the global limit in place Rithmic would have failed me out with too many contracts.

In order to have this in place I have to pay the live commission 5.04 per round trip commission for CL instead of 4.44. Most of the time the unwanted contracts are only a minor problem because one additional contract does not put me over the limit but 2 extra contracts does. E2T and Rithmic (I don't believe) take this problem seriously but they do have a real problem in this area.

 

[Earn2Trade]

I am surprised that E2T in their response did not tell you that they can do exactly what you have asked for. I have a limit in place right now and am limited to 1 Contract of CL in my current ongoing Gauntlet. It is a good thing because while I was in a position this morning and was not even touching my mouse as I was on my keyboard entering the entry price in a spreadsheet window and I saw on my screen "Trade Failed" at lease 2 and maybe 3 times. Rithmic once again tried to add contracts that I did not want. I have now had that happen many times over 3 Gauntlets with 2 different mouses. I have talked about this earlier in this thread. If I had not had the global limit in place Rithmic would have failed me out with too many contracts.

In order to have this in place I have to pay the live commission 5.04 per round trip commission for CL instead of 4.44. Most of the time the unwanted contracts are only a minor problem because one additional contract does not put me over the limit but 2 extra contracts does. E2T and Rithmic (I don't believe) take this problem seriously but they do have a real problem in this area.

You are right Illini, I'm sorry if I neglected to mention it, but candidates can certainly ask the customer support agents to set a global limit for you.

 

[DevBru]

You are right Illini, I'm sorry if I neglected to mention it, but candidates can certainly ask the customer support agents to set a global limit for you.

If this is possible then why not limit the max contracts that could be opened at once according to the max allowed by the evaluation/funded account rules by default?

 

[Illini Trader]

If this is possible then why not limit the max contracts that could be opened at once according to the max allowed by the evaluation/funded account rules by default?

Most People will not want it because they have to pay a higher commission on the Gauntlet in order to do this. Plus there is the progression ladder. I only wanted one contract for the duration of the gauntlet.

 

[Earn2Trade-Ryan]

Most People will not want it because they have to pay a higher commission on the Gauntlet in order to do this. Plus there is the progression ladder. I only wanted one contract for the duration of the gauntlet.

Hey! That’s not entirely accurate. E2T has a default commission when the account is in SMAC mode in Rithmic. When requesting to have contracts limited or to request “live commissions” that match Helios, most are actually lower than the default global commission.

 

[Illini Trader]

Hey! That’s not entirely accurate. E2T has a default commission when the account is in SMAC mode in Rithmic. When requesting to have contracts limited or to request “live commissions” that match Helios, most are actually lower than the default global commission.

That is good news but I guess CL falls outside the category of "Most" since the Gauntlet commission rate for CL is $4.44 and now I am paying the $5.04 "live Helios rate" on my current on-going Gauntlet because I requested to have my contracts limited to 1. I would love to have a lower commission rate on my Gauntlet because I make a lot of trades.

 

[Earn2Trade-Ryan]

That is good news but I guess CL falls outside the category of "Most" since the Gauntlet commission rate for CL is $4.44 and now I am paying the $5.04 "live Helios rate" on my current on-going Gauntlet because I requested to have my contracts limited to 1. I would love to have a lower commission rate on my Gauntlet because I make a lot of trades.

Yes CL/GC are more expensive, indexes/micros/etc are less.