How many traders made 100k or more in profits in 2016 ?
TopstepTrader Q & A
- Thread starter Topstep
- Start date
- Status
How many traders made 100k or more in profits in 2016 ?
I think you've rather misunderstood the service TST is offering, and who their target market is, Volente, to ask this question.
(With absolutely no entry-barrier at all, and most of their traders being part-time, it would be astonishing indeed, if any funded account holders ever make $100k in a year. They wouldn't need TST, would they? There are details of nearly 500 successfully funded traders here, and plenty of funded account success stories here, if you want to read them ... but I suspect that isn't really what your question's about at all, is it?).
What was the penalty
This quote is from another thread, but I guess the numbers are from TST's website:
1. I don't believe 1 out of 5 combiners get funded. It is probably 1 in 10, unless they count repeat combiners as 1.
2. 50% failing funded is irrelevant without a timeframe. Maybe they meant 3 months. I bet the 1 year failure rate is 80-90%.
1. I don't believe 1 out of 5 combiners get funded. It is probably 1 in 10, unless they count repeat combiners as 1.
2. 50% failing funded is irrelevant without a timeframe. Maybe they meant 3 months. I bet the 1 year failure rate is 80-90%.
The last time it was independently audited, it was 19%. But since then, there have now been two major sets of rule-changes which were both removals of restrictions, both making it easier to get funded, and aimed at increasing the Combine pass-rate.
As ever, as in so many other threads, you're very, very quick to cast aspersions against TST, Pekelo, but you never have any evidence for them at all. It's just "I bet".
Well, ok - bet away.
But don't expect too many people to imagine that you might actually be right.
By whom?* But OK, let it be 19%, which is an exceptionally good result by the way. So if everything is working so good for TST, why do they need to change the rules? Aren't they happy with the 19% success rate? I would be... The reason why they need to change the rules is because the turn over rate is very high, it is just the nature of this business.
But you do agree there is no point throwing out stats without time frames, right? Hey, I have made 10K. Who cares about such a pesky details if it was in one day or in one year?
By the way, congrats, I took you off of my Ignore list, I will give you another chance.
Oh and the reason why we don't take anything at face value with TST, because of Trump.
Once you get caught lying, it is harder to believe you. Alternate facts and such...
*You probably meant Emmett here, but he was paid in pizza, so his objectivity is highly suspect. I know I would kill for a good pizza. I am still waiting for the second part of his TST expose...
Last edited:
You could ask them? The thread's here for questions (not unevidenced aspersions), and that strikes me as a perfectly reasonable one to ask?
My own guess is that they wanted to try to increase the Combine pass-rate in ways which wouldn't significantly impact their risk management of backing its successful participants.
That would make sense, wouldn't it, because it would increase the subsequent overall volume of their profit-share on successful participants?
But their answer will be better informed than mine.
I do know that they're very responsive to feedback from people, and have quite often incorporated people's suggestions into their terms (such as the recent abolition of the "10-day rule"). I think you probably know that, too, from their other, longer thread.
On most subjects other than TST, I like your posts here (and quite often click to say so). So that suits me fine.
I remember that in the other thread, you openly reminded yourself not to post any more on this subject, and it does seem that you have rather a bee in your bonnet (excuse the English idiom!) about TST.
Some of your comments about them have been just factually incorrect, and others clearly very prejudiced. Again, I know that you know this, really.
LOL, I'm afraid you may be right about that.
And I don't even have a pizza smiley in stock.
I offer you a pancake one instead (best I can do, at short notice) ...
Those are the quoted stats, it's smart to stick with them as the basis, which provides a 91% failure rate (50% of 18%), that's better than the 99% retail failure rate but far from transparent.
Last edited:
I kind of suspected that, that's why he was on my Ignore list. The biased and subjective defending of them was too obvious.
But nice detective work nevertheless!
I will treat you like the unofficial speaker for TST...
If the survival rate of the Funded traders are rather low (as I suspect), that means the filtering process of the Combine isn't working very well. So they have to tighten the rules, not ease them. The idea would be that it is hard to become funded, but once you are there, you survive for a decent amount of time because you were correctly filtered.
But of course if it is "rather easy" to get to the funded stage, they are going to get killed like flies in November. At this point they probably have 120-150 funded traders at any given time, personally I think that is too many, specially that most of them generates little money.
If I were in the backing business I would rather have 1-2 dozens traders (much easier to monitor and deal with) trading dozens of contracts than hundreds of traders messing with 2-5 contracts. But that is just me...
By the way I have been more interested in their business side than the trader's side, maybe that's why I keep coming back to the topic. Generally speaking their trader backing business model is a catch 22.... But if we throw in the combine fees....
If the survival rate of the Funded traders are rather low (as I suspect), that means the filtering process of the Combine isn't working very well. So they have to tighten the rules, not ease them. The idea would be that it is hard to become funded, but once you are there, you survive for a decent amount of time because you were correctly filtered.
But of course if it is "rather easy" to get to the funded stage, they are going to get killed like flies in November. At this point they probably have 120-150 funded traders at any given time, personally I think that is too many, specially that most of them generates little money.
If I were in the backing business I would rather have 1-2 dozens traders (much easier to monitor and deal with) trading dozens of contracts than hundreds of traders messing with 2-5 contracts. But that is just me...
By the way I have been more interested in their business side than the trader's side, maybe that's why I keep coming back to the topic. Generally speaking their trader backing business model is a catch 22.... But if we throw in the combine fees....
- Status