TopstepTrader and Patak Trading Partners- Easy to read QUESTIONS and ANSWERS

[Maverick74]

Quote from volente_00:

So when they say all performance metrics are gone, does this include the minimum profit amounts as well ?

Yes. There is no minimum except that every product traded has to be greater then zero. So if you make $1 trading only one product, you did it!!!!! Yea for ET!

Of course the irony is that it NEVER was the metrics that was stopping anyone from passing the combine. It was their own personal discipline. The stop out rule is still in effect and that likely will continue to weed out most ET'ers who just can't help themselves. Reminds me of the character Chris Rock played in the movie "New Jack City" where Chris was a junkie working undercover in a narcotics factory. He was surrounded by all the drugs and he just couldn't control himself.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from Maverick74:

Yes. There is no minimum except that every product traded has to be greater then zero. So if you make $1 trading only one product, you did it!!!!! Yea for ET!

Of course the irony is that it NEVER was the metrics that was stopping anyone from passing the combine. It was their own personal discipline. The stop out rule is still in effect and that likely will continue to weed out most ET'ers who just can't help themselves. Reminds me of the character Chris Rock played in the movie "New Jack City" where Chris was a junkie working undercover in a narcotics factory. He was surrounded by all the drugs and he just couldn't control himself.

Are you sure ?
That does not make sense to back a trader who made $1 profit but had a $1500 drawdown

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from volente_00:

Are you sure ?
That does not make sense to back a trader who made $1 profit but had a $1500 drawdown

Yes, I'm sure. Why does it not make sense to back a guy who can show you at the very least he is a scratch trader who will NOT violate his draw down limits. You do realize that probably is less then 5% of all traders can even accomplish this feat right?

 

[Crispy]

Quote from Maverick74:

Yes, I'm sure. Why does it not make sense to back a guy who can show you at the very least he is a scratch trader who will NOT violate his draw down limits. You do realize that probably is less then 5% of all traders can even accomplish this feat right?

People tend to not think of how important and hard the scratch step is. They assume you go from net loser to Marty Schwartz once it starts to click. Scratch to winner is psychological growth in this game. The hardest step for many.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from Maverick74:

Yes, I'm sure. Why does it not make sense to back a guy who can show you at the very least he is a scratch trader who will NOT violate his draw down limits. You do realize that probably is less then 5% of all traders can even accomplish this feat right?

Because it does not make sense for the backer to take that risk.

The combine is a very limited window of time. If a trader is only showing low profits and high draw downs even if they end slightly positive is a losing proposition for the backer.


So you think it is smart to place a bet where past performance shows you could lose $1500 and the reward is only $1 gain ?


There is no way they are going to let people go live with that lopsided risk to reward.


Where is the positive expectancy of this trader over a timeframe longer than 10 or 20 trading days ?

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from volente_00:

Because it does not make sense for the backer to take that risk.

The combine is a very limited window of time. If a trader is only showing low profits and high draw downs even if they end slightly positive is a losing proposition for the backer.


So you think it is smart to place a bet where past performance shows you could lose $1500 and the reward is only $1 gain ?


There is no way they are going to let people go live with that lopsided risk to reward.


Where is the positive expectancy of this trader over a timeframe longer than 10 or 20 trading days ?

Crispy gets it, you don't. I would back any scratch trader under the combine conditions and actually have. As Crispy said, becoming a scratch trader is very hard. To repeat what Crispy said, most guys don't go from mega loser to mega winner. Once you become a scratch trader, that process can take a while to start making a lot of money but it actually demonstrates risk control, the very thing a backer wants to see. Your understanding of trader math is non existent. The issue is not risking 1500 to make a $1. It's what is your "expected" return over the life of a trader. We've already seen via the combines and even Austin's trading that producing big numbers means jack shit. Because he is erratic. His variance is so high and he has no consistency.

You are also falsely assuming that these traders are doing one combine. My guess is that even with these lower standards, most traders will need 3 or 4 combines to even reach this goal. And the stats back me up on that. Once they go live, if they lose a tiny amount of money, they go back to the combine. The backer really has very little risk here unless you are assuming he is playing with a 5k bankroll. LOL.

I'll take a scratch trader any day over Austin's numbers. I know a lot of backers in this business. Our firm also backed a lot of guys. If a guy can show he is a disciplined trader who can control his risk, I'll take that risk any day and so will most backers. Let me repeat this, 95% of traders cannot even get to the scratch level so once you are there, you are dealing with a guy who has made it to the top 5%. Odds are, no guarantees of course, but odds are, he/she will develop into a good trader. And if they are making commish on the deal as well, all the better. When I backed guys I ALWAYS got a piece of the commish. A good scratch trader was very valuable. At my old equity firm in NY, they built an empire on scratch traders and commish. It's a very lucrative model. The hard part was finding good scratch traders. You make it sound 100 times easier then it is. It's not. I bet the numbers going forward will back up my argument. Let's see how many guys on ET get funded if it's just oh so easy.

 

[yiehom]

I believe this is their thought process, Mave.
Trade scratched is trade lost, loss cut to its minimum: the commission. Which is no mean feat at all, I know a bloke would pay dear to be there
Now, if the commission is not too small, do the math after thousands of round turns...
Yes, not a losing proposition even with scratchers.

Quote from Maverick74:

Crispy gets it, you don't. I would back any scratch trader under the combine conditions and actually have. As Crispy said, becoming a scratch trader is very hard. To repeat what Crispy said, most guys don't go from mega loser to mega winner. Once you become a scratch trader, that process can take a while to start making a lot of money but it actually demonstrates risk control, the very thing a backer wants to see. Your understanding of trader math is non existent. The issue is not risking 1500 to make a $1. It's what is your "expected" return over the life of a trader. We've already seen via the combines and even Austin's trading that producing big numbers means jack shit. Because he is erratic. His variance is so high and he has no consistency.

You are also falsely assuming that these traders are doing one combine. My guess is that even with these lower standards, most traders will need 3 or 4 combines to even reach this goal. And the stats back me up on that. Once they go live, if they lose a tiny amount of money, they go back to the combine. The backer really has very little risk here unless you are assuming he is playing with a 5k bankroll. LOL.

I'll take a scratch trader any day over Austin's numbers. I know a lot of backers in this business. Our firm also backed a lot of guys. If a guy can show he is a disciplined trader who can control his risk, I'll take that risk any day and so will most backers. Let me repeat this, 95% of traders cannot even get to the scratch level so once you are there, you are dealing with a guy who has made it to the top 5%. Odds are, no guarantees of course, but odds are, he/she will develop into a good trader. And if they are making commish on the deal as well, all the better. When I backed guys I ALWAYS got a piece of the commish. A good scratch trader was very valuable. At my old equity firm in NY, they built an empire on scratch traders and commish. It's a very lucrative model. The hard part was finding good scratch traders. You make it sound 100 times easier then it is. It's not. I bet the numbers going forward will back up my argument. Let's see how many guys on ET get funded if it's just oh so easy.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from Maverick74:

Crispy gets it, you don't. I would back any scratch trader under the combine conditions and actually have. As Crispy said, becoming a scratch trader is very hard. To repeat what Crispy said, most guys don't go from mega loser to mega winner. Once you become a scratch trader, that process can take a while to start making a lot of money but it actually demonstrates risk control, the very thing a backer wants to see. Your understanding of trader math is non existent. The issue is not risking 1500 to make a $1. It's what is your "expected" return over the life of a trader. We've already seen via the combines and even Austin's trading that producing big numbers means jack shit. Because he is erratic. His variance is so high and he has no consistency.

You are also falsely assuming that these traders are doing one combine. My guess is that even with these lower standards, most traders will need 3 or 4 combines to even reach this goal. And the stats back me up on that. Once they go live, if they lose a tiny amount of money, they go back to the combine. The backer really has very little risk here unless you are assuming he is playing with a 5k bankroll. LOL.

I'll take a scratch trader any day over Austin's numbers. I know a lot of backers in this business. Our firm also backed a lot of guys. If a guy can show he is a disciplined trader who can control his risk, I'll take that risk any day and so will most backers. Let me repeat this, 95% of traders cannot even get to the scratch level so once you are there, you are dealing with a guy who has made it to the top 5%. Odds are, no guarantees of course, but odds are, he/she will develop into a good trader. And if they are making commish on the deal as well, all the better. When I backed guys I ALWAYS got a piece of the commish. A good scratch trader was very valuable. At my old equity firm in NY, they built an empire on scratch traders and commish. It's a very lucrative model. The hard part was finding good scratch traders. You make it sound 100 times easier then it is. It's not. I bet the numbers going forward will back up my argument. Let's see how many guys on ET get funded if it's just oh so easy.

Still does not make sense unless your ulterior motive is to just churn and burn as a backer.
How long do you think a break even trader will churn commissions if they are not making any income ? The other thing is it has already been disclosed that live traders only show about half of the performance that was done in their combine. If you are break even on sim then odds are you will be a losing trader live. Ive seen this happen firsthand with people I have mentored over the past 10 years.

So your argument is the backer hopes to make up the difference in overrides and does not really care now if the trader loses. For 3 years there have been all these rules and then out of the blue they decide they are not needed.

What does tst offer that free sim does not?

If you lack discipline then paying for sim is not going to help you. It will only teach you to trade scared and scared money is dead money.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from Crispy:

People tend to not think of how important and hard the scratch step is. They assume you go from net loser to Marty Schwartz once it starts to click. Scratch to winner is psychological growth in this game. The hardest step for many.

Haven't you been live since march ?

What is your current status at tst ?

How has your performance been compared to your combine ?

 

[nazzdack]

Quote from Maverick74:
----Yes. There is no minimum except that every product traded has to be greater then zero. So if you make $1 trading only one product, you did it!!!!! Yea for ET! ..... ?....(TST?)

1) Are profit objectives considered "performance metrics"? Have they actually been eliminated? I don't see mention of it at the site...... yet.
2) Maybe it means that if you trade two or more markets, you have to be breakeven or better for each market. It goes without saying for trading only one market.
3) I wonder if there will be increased interest in the larger accounts if a participant only has to be net-positive instead of hitting a profit goal.