How profitable are the traders and coaches at tst ?

Quote from volente_00:

So if you front me $2500 and I return $4000 back to you in 10 trading days what would you say the return is back to you ?

If I "invested" $2500 in your fund the first thing I need to know is what is your daily loss limit. Second thing I need to know is what is your variance. I expect only a small fraction of my $2500 would be exposed to risk in the market. Not the whole thing. And if you gave me back $4000 in 10 days I would ask to get out of your fund. That Variance is off the chart. I have no interest in that kind of volatility nor is that kind of volatility sustainable long term. And as the previous poster mentioned, your math is off there. That would concern me as well.
 
I can only repeat what Rick Perry said after screwing up on national TV -- OOPS!

Quote from kut2k2:

First of all I would be quite pleased if the risk parameter was within the agreed limits and I would say there is only one number to describe the return: 62.5% over a 10 day period. You could obviously annualize that return on a compounded basis to a stratospheric number but that would be warping reality for you would have no reasonable expectationsof anyone repeating that performance multiple times.

But the return is 62.5% over 10 days. To simplify the math if you gave me $5,000 back it would be a 100% return over 10 days.
LMAO! :D :D

$4000 is 60% greater than $2500. Not 62.5% greater.

Now we know why you can't trade. You can't even do arithmetic. :p
[/QUOTE]
 
Mav, it was my math that was rediculously off but it was not my proposition in the first place. I agree, it's ice to grab the windfall return but you need to cash in on the spot. No sustainability.

Quote from Maverick74:

If I "invested" $2500 in your fund the first thing I need to know is what is your daily loss limit. Second thing I need to know is what is your variance. I expect only a small fraction of my $2500 would be exposed to risk in the market. Not the whole thing. And if you gave me back $4000 in 10 days I would ask to get out of your fund. That Variance is off the chart. I have no interest in that kind of volatility nor is that kind of volatility sustainable long term. And as the previous poster mentioned, your math is off there. That would concern me as well.
 
Quote from Swan Noir:

Mav, it was my math that was rediculously off but it was not my proposition in the first place. I agree, it's ice to grab the windfall return but you need to cash in on the spot. No sustainability.

I was commenting on Volente's 62.5% vs 60% (the correct answer). You were offering a hypothetical.

But regarding returns, I think most of the serious posters here fully understand the mathematical relationship between risk and reward and between variance and the probability of ruin. It's why Bill Gross is managing 500 billion with 7% annual returns and LJM Partners is managing mostly his own capital and maybe 50 million with returns occasionally topping 50% annually. No one wants the volatility.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

If I "invested" $2500 in your fund the first thing I need to know is what is your daily loss limit. Second thing I need to know is what is your variance. I expect only a small fraction of my $2500 would be exposed to risk in the market. Not the whole thing. And if you gave me back $4000 in 10 days I would ask to get out of your fund. That Variance is off the chart. I have no interest in that kind of volatility nor is that kind of volatility sustainable long term. And as the previous poster mentioned, your math is off there. That would concern me as well.


1000 is at risk


Same performance metrics as the lowest combine.


So we can agree that a $1500 return on a $2500 investment is a pipe dream ?
 
Quote from volente_00:

1000 is at risk


Same performance metrics as the lowest combine.


So we can agree that a $1500 return on a $2500 investment is a pipe dream ?

You still are struggling with basic math. I'm not investing 2500, I want to give you 50k. I would make that investment on the condition that the daily loss does not exceed 1k a day and I would prefer the annualized standard deviation to be be under 15%.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

This comment is so beyond absurd. These are the comments people make who do NOT trade for a living. Talking about making 100% a year like they are cutting their lawn. Nobody is making 100% a year. This is typical ET talk. Look, if any of these guys "could" make 100% a year they would not be playing around with combines and they would REJECT the offer to go live and simply trade their own money or they would be working for a hedge fund fund or real prop firm.

I don't know how to break this to Pekelo, but most of the proprietary trading shops in Chicago have completely shut down. And it's not from all the guys making a 100% a year. If there was this huge supply of traders out there making 100% a year, the demand to back them would meet that supply. That is simple economics. Not that Pekelo understands that.

I actually ran our Chicago office for 6 years. And we had a lot of daytraders. And NONE of them made money over time. Sure, some got lucky and had a good day, a good week, some even had a few good months. But most left the firm with nothing. Forget about making 100%, the best guys were just marginally profitable.

If Pekelo actually did this for a living he would truly understand just how absurd his statement is. But since he lives in this ET fantasy land where guys are turning 5k accounts into millions using simply moving avg cross overs, he thinks his statements make complete sense.

Let me say this again, if anyone is actually sincerely interested in the math and the statistics behind actually backing traders, read Jack Schwager's book that I referenced earlier. It's an outstanding read and it's loadeed with real actual data, not hyperbole and assumptions. After reading that book, you will come to understand the mathematical challenges of backing traders.


you're sounding like nodoji.

so how are the traders at tst doing?

frankly, me thinks that tst will probably attract guys and gals who are reflective of M. Patak.
 
Quote from SteveNYC:

you're sounding like nodoji.

so how are the traders at tst doing?

frankly, me thinks that tst will probably attract guys and gals who are reflective of M. Patak.

I'm already on the record saying I doubt most of the TST guys will ever see a check. But that's primarily because of the type of person who is attracted to TST. Which frankly, is the ET crowd. I'm also on record saying TST is the BEST thing that ever happened to them because instead of blowing their life savings giving futures trading the old college try, they can blow out losing just a few hundred bucks and then go back to their day job and live a normal life. Blaming Patak for their failures is like blaming Bugsy Siegel for Vegas and building the Flamingo Hotel.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

I'm already on the record saying I doubt most of the TST guys will ever see a check. But that's primarily because of the type of person who is attracted to TST. Which frankly, is the ET crowd. I'm also on record saying TST is the BEST thing that ever happened to them because instead of blowing their life savings giving futures trading the old college try, they can blow out losing just a few hundred bucks and then go back to their day job and live a normal life. Blaming Patak for their failures is like blaming Bugsy Siegel for Vegas and building the Flamingo Hotel.

sounds sad and bleak.

maybe M. Patak should change something so he attracts traders with a better chance of succeeding.
 
Back
Top