Bottom line is he who holds the money calls the shots
If you don't like this deal then find another way to make it happen
Maverick74 and marketsurfer's TopstepTrader Combine (daily trade reports and journal)
- Thread starter TST_Hoag
- Start date
Bottom line is he who holds the money calls the shots
If you don't like this deal then find another way to make it happen
I'm saying, let's say Surf did not get knocked out. He games the system. Makes 7k in one day and losses the rest but somehow qualifies. What is he suppose to do when he goes live? Can you answer me this?
What you are suggesting would work if there was a cash prize for hitting the mark. Let's say he would get 10k in cash if he "wins" right? Fine, game it all you want. But my point is, you don't win anything by passing the combine and they could give him a live account and send him down immediately after losing money. So what exactly is the point to this? You can't seem to answer that.
I don't support anything btw. I'm simply telling you what is on their website. That's not up for debate. What is up for debate is what would be the purpose of a trader who can't trade to game the system. I'm all ears man.
If anyone carefully reads & comprehends what the parameters are here... it is crystal clear.
Funded traders need to accomplish a combination of the following in equal importance...
meet the minimum profit objective for their allocation class
be profitable at least 50% of the days... 5 of 10 or 10 of 20
be profitable with at least 45% win rate on trades
larger average profits than average losses
this is not a game or contest to plunge for the $3,500 and sandbag the remaining days. Like Mav said, what does that demonstrate for consistency to fund for managed assets?
too many guys here did what so many men always do: assume it's a contest, look for the prize and ignore the rest. This is not a contest or game to be won on technicalities. It is a live interview for a position that's performance-based.
So perform according to the clearly listed guidelines, or pass. Individual choice
That is a null hypothesis. Surf did get knocked out. He got knocked out by the rules of the game in place. Therefore, I cannot answer your question of what he does when he goes live.
I can, however, respond to the underlying assumption that you make, which is that a person who gets "lucky" and passes the combine shouldn't get funded. How do you determine who got lucky and has no skill and who passed by skill alone? Isn't this measured (albeit imperfectly) by the objective criteria chosen by the combine makers?
I can answer it and have already stated that the combine is likely attractive to people who want to get paid for trading and who lack the small amount of money to open an account. It is also no doubt attractive to the company making an income from the people who have such dreams.
"Game the system"? C'mon, man, who is gaming the system if not the people making money off this combine thing? They should at least make the rules of the game clear and objective without any discretion by "scouts."
What's funny is that this debate is caused by my suggestion that a person should limit himself to low-risk/high-reward times which are infrequent occurrences and once the $3500 is reached to not take any chances in higher-risk/lower-reward markets. Somehow this is looked upon as unskillful or gaming the system. I do agree that it is going for home runs on fat pitches coming down the pipe and laying off the breaking stuff. It takes a lot of skill to do that, however, even if the scouts who are watching from the stands don't know how to recognize it.
OK, you still are not answering my question. Let's try a different approach. Let's say I'm running this with the same rules as we have now. Let's use Surf again in our example. Say Surf passes the combine by getting 90% of his p&l in one day. I know he got lucky, but I'm going to give him his live account anyway with the intention of sending him right back to the combine the second he loses money. Afterall, they do not state precisely how much you need to lose to go back. I suspect Surf gamed the system, but hey, I don't want to get sued right? So I give him his live account. And toss him right back to the combine as soon as he loses money and he now has to do another 10 or 20 day combine.
My question to you, which you refuse to answer is, why and to what purpose does it serve to game the system instead of simply trying to trade profitably and let the chips fall where they may. Now I'm making an assumption here that Surf knows he can't trade but he "thinks" he can game the system enough to go live. What I want to know is why would he do this? It can't be to get a funded account as he has to know he will never see a check in his hand. So why would he do this and what would he do when he goes live? Look, I can get around the legality of this easily. I can just give anyone a live account the second they call me screaming fraud. Right? Just to shut him up I'll give him his live account. What I want to know is what purpose it it serving him to get a live account? Is there anyway you can actually answer this question? Whatever your complaints are there is always an out for me right, I can just do whatever to shut you up and make you happy. I just want to know what HE is going to get out of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone carefully reads & comprehends what the parameters are here... it is crystal clear.
Funded traders need to accomplish a combination of the following in equal importance...
meet the minimum profit objective for their allocation class
be profitable at least 50% of the days... 5 of 10 or 10 of 20
be profitable with at least 45% win rate on trades
larger average profits than average losses
this is not a game or contest to plunge for the $3,500 and sandbag the remaining days. Like Mav said, what does that demonstrate for consistency to fund for managed assets?
too many guys here did what so many men always do: assume it's a contest, look for the prize and ignore the rest. This is not a contest or game to be won on technicalities. It is a live interview for a position that's performance-based.
So perform according to the clearly listed guidelines, or pass. Individual choice
and once you pass by those measures stated,you should be funded ,no exceptions,if you can't trade it will be evident immediately in your pnl restrictions and that should be their method,they are covered legally and they can shut you down,electronically, the second you reach a loss limit..so the reasoning behind the discretionary judgement should be spelled out, because when you paid in, this became a lottery and it is a contest,rules should be spelled out,they are not really giving you 50k, they are giving you a 5 lot max and a 1k stop,it might be a $500 stop,in es that's less than 20k margin ,and their risk is 1k,about the deposit of 5-7 entrants out of 200-500,per month
I know you are in competition with him, but this is not about Surf. LOL
I don't want to personalize it so that's probably why you think I'm not answering your question. Let me try again.
You keep bringing up the purpose thing. What purpose does it serve to fund someone and just send him back willy-nilly? It serves no purpose to do that. However, I would think that objective performance criteria are in place for sending someone back after funding the person. I haven't read the website so I do not know that, but I cannot see how their business model would be viable otherwise. You cannot just hire and fire people willy-nilly in this country without legal repercussions. Since I have a feeling you will think I'm not answering your question, why don't you make certain that they can do what you suggest before you assume it can be done.
Regarding what a person can get out of being funded after passing the combine even though he "will never see a check in his hand": How do you know he will never see a check in his hand? Are you prescient? By your judgment, the person shouldn't have passed the combine, but he did.
I suggested that a person can extract 14 points per contract ES on a couple of trend days and scratch the remaining days in order to pass the combine and get funded. The owner of the combine and a site sponsor objects to my suggestion as being ineligible for funding based on "scouting criteria" and ET's Number One Shill for the combine says that is gaming the system and would serve no purpose to fund such a person because he won't see a check.
Just another day on ET.
It is in the rules that you don't get automatically funded just because you passed the combine. There is a subjective review of your trades, so they covered that.
But they should be more flexible. Let's say a trader makes only $3400 with very litle DD and with very good consistency. He would/should be clearly fundable by any logical standard, but not by the Combines's rules. The difference between 3400 and 3500 anualized is minoscule and the style should make up for that 100 bucks missing.
So if I were doing the subjective evaluation, I would keep a more open mind and not just look at the strict rules.
Question to Mr. Patak: Is there a Live trader who got in without actually passing the Combine???
Starting to see your point. You're paying $ with the expectation of potential gain if you meet x criteria. If even 1 out of 10 of those criteria are subjective, then your contribution is at infinite risk, regardless of your performance.
The only way to keep this above the level is to remove all subjectivity and to delineate exactly what, in the minds of the funders, defines a trader worth funding.