Topsteptrader

[ScalperJoe]

So say you pass the 150k combine
Then you are asked to make half $4,500 profit target in ltp?
If you reach that you then go live and can only trade a max 3 lot until you build up the account?

In regards to the equity, if you build the live account to 10k do they still make you follow the no trading 1 minute before or after economic announcements?

Yep, if you get the live account, then you can start to monetize the scale up plan, as long as you can get through Days 1-10 of the live account, starting with 3 lots.

I think the "no trading 1 minute rule" applies to all accounts, combine and live trading. It's a good rule to avoid wicked swings on major news.

 

[ScalperJoe]

Hi everybody I have one question regarding to "always implement a Stop Loss when you open a position", with that in mind (BTW I use Ninja Trader) Do I have to always use an ATM Strategy?, but in other way how are they going to know if I open a position with a Stop Loss??

Given it's one of the rules in the live accounts, then you're probably better off utilizing the ATM on Ninja in the combine as well. Also, if you managed to pass a combine, my guess is they would review all of the trades, and they could easily look at the time stamps to see if you placed a stop order.

 

[ScalperJoe]

I myself only see advantages in giving a go at the Combine.
Trying it ( 97$ for the start one) is absolutely not expensive nor in money , nor time
( one can trade a combine 30mns daily for 10 days). 100$/day for 10 days , on average, gives you a pass.

Exactly, when evaluating the business opportunity, just look at the "opportunity cost" of the substitute. In this case, it's TST vs. a retail account. Even if it takes several combines, your opportunity cost will most likely be less than the "blow up" cost of a retail account, especially at first. Once you develop your 'edge' however, it will still require equity. I know londonkid thinks there are superstar traders who can scale up with 1 lot even with a piker cushion, but that simply isn't realistic, whether it's a TST account or retail.

So although the smaller combine "is absolutely not expensive" in time or money, given the TST rules of the live account where your TOTAL maximum draw is defined by your equity balance on day 11, unless you have an adequate equity balance, you will run the risk of being sent back to the combine faster with the smaller account.

 

[ScalperJoe]

The only incentive is it tricks the combiner into paying TST $375 instead of $95 because the only way you have a chance to make any decent money is to trader larger size with this setup. So what ends up happening to most is they either trade conservative and grind and grind and get burned out after a year of making peanuts in their live account or they try scaling up with the suicidal $500 per car noose they are given and end up blowing up and quitting or sent back to the combine as the realize the truth of the matter over time.

I agree with the comment, except for the part where they "trick" the combiner. I think a trader may want to pay the higher combine fee ONLY when they are confident they can pass it, not sooner. However, your analysis is correct, and that is the reason why Crispy left TST. He passed the combine, he was profitable, and he had no regrets about the experience. He simply could not monetize the scale up plan, which of course requires...well, you know.

 

[shiko2000]

To withdraw some profits is a very good idea by TST. I have been in good profitable months enough times to make withdrawals, not all or half but a bit to taste the blood and know I am doing my job. Had months I was up $2000-3000 on a contract but did nothing. Results were not good as I was giving back half or some more of that money few times. Most of the time it was natural thing , but June July I started having fits Basically after the last fit I decided once I am above certain equity level I will make small withdrawal. And will consistently follow the rule every 2 weeks. Will be getting my first check soon. The rest is for further cushion building.
I basically started seeing my account as demo after so long not taking anything.
Planning to buy my wife some diamond ring once I withdraw enough hopefully. She deserves it for her support and patience.

 

[ScalperJoe]

I think they are trying to make people grow their accounts until they reach 5000 before cashing out. Maybe people are moving on and opening their own account as soon as they realise they are profitable?
I dont know. Whats the catch?

I think the incentive is you keep 100% of the profits up to the first $5,000, and it then switches to the 80/20 model. Every change TST makes seems favorable to the trader.

If you are profitable with TST, then you are getting an account with zero maintenance margin and virtually unlimited upside. Your only losses are those of your draws from the "build up" of equity.

So the key to grow the account is through monetizing the "scale up" plan with that equity. I think "people are moving on" not because of the realization they are profitable, but rather because they cannot monetize the "scale up" plan.

 

[ScalperJoe]

That is a good thread, for the weekend reader, one should start to read it from post #126, that is where it gets interesting....

Hoag's response:

"Each individual account is a sub-account of the master account which has substantial capital in it. In terms of the balance being $0 - yes that is true.We saw how traders performed when they came onto an account and got starry-eyed seeing high balances. It gave performance anxiety. We learned that lesson and approach everything as risk. It’s not the size of the account, but how much you can trade, build your balance slowly and surely, and the rest will take care of itself. "

Call me stupid, but just how big of an account one needs to trade 1-3 contracts???(starting size for every Live trader) But his last words are very true for a self backed trader too, "It’s not the size of the account, but how much you can trade, build your balance slowly and surely,

So tell me again, why do I need TST unless I am a 10 year old from rural China?

Their newest funded trader:

Pekelo,

Since it's a backed account, having a "zero" starting balance makes sense.

It is actually an effective way to see where you stand after the close of each day. If you reach the daily loss or the max allowable draw from the "zero" (starting) balance, you lose. If you are able to generate profits above the "zero" (starting) balance on Day 11, great, you win, and continue trading. Since there is a fixed lot size when you start, and since there is no maintenance margin put up by the trader, it wouldn't really make a difference what they showed in terms of amount of total buying power/leverage.

Like I said earlier, the analysis of the business model is through "opportunity cost" and I think TST responded quite accurately, quoted here:

"The only other alternative is to open a brokerage account. I would much rather someone spend as little as $95/mo. in a Combine, developing safely, with an opportunity tied to it, than open a brokerage account and put in $10K, $20K, $30K+ - and blow it up. Because, as most on here know, that is how that story ends. And it’s worth noting, based on a survey we conducted, 97% of all Combine participants say the Combine helped them develop as a trader, so don’t discount that upside to it."

 

[Pekelo]

Every change TST makes seems favorable to the trader.

This is true and has been true for the last 5 years. Of course that also means TST quite sucked for the trader 5 years ago, but let's stay positive for now:

Room for improvements:

1. Make the LTP and the Combine rules the same.

2. It shouldn't matter if one trading instrument is in the red, as long as the overall profit goal is reached. Just don't let the trader trade it Live until it is proven to be profitable.

3. Drop the 45% profitable days requirement to 25-30%. The supposed purpose of this rule is to prevent one day wonders to pass the Combine, but really a passed Combine is not an automatic OK, so this requirement is rather unnecessary. Also some very profitable strategies can have a very low expectancy, this rule preventing them to be backed.(let's say a breakout strategy that only occurs 1-2 times a week)

4. Stop the trader highlights (very scammy) unless they are on a higher timeframe. Saying Trader X made 3K on Thursday is meaningless unless we know that the same trader also lost 4K on Friday. Discuss the bad with the good, if you want to be respected.(how about Live traders dropped per month?)

5. Automatically close the positions 5 minutes before market close after all this is the 21st century, or what. If they want the traders to be principled, there are other ways to do so....

6. Instead of advertising the number of Combiners passed (a rather meaningless number), how about giving nameless stats on the Live traders?
(let's say the top 5 traders averaged 10K in July)

I am sure there are more, but it is early in the morning and I haven't had my coffee...

 

[ScalperJoe]

1. Make the LTP and the Combine rules the same.

2. It shouldn't matter if one trading instrument is in the red, as long as the overall profit goal is reached. Just don't let the trader trade it Live until it is proven to be profitable.

3. Drop the 45% profitable days requirement to 25-30%. The supposed purpose of this rule is to prevent one day wonders to pass the Combine, but really a passed Combine is not an automatic OK, so this requirement is rather unnecessary. Also some very profitable strategies can have a very low expectancy, this rule preventing them to be backed.(let's say a breakout strategy that only occurs 1-2 times a week)

4. Stop the trader highlights (very scammy) unless they are on a higher timeframe. Saying Trader X made 3K on Thursday is meaningless unless we know that the same trader also lost 4K on Friday. Discuss the bad with the good, if you want to be respected.(how about Live traders dropped per month?)

5. Automatically close the positions 5 minutes before market close after all this is the 21st century, or what. If they want the traders to be principled, there are other ways to do so....

6. Instead of advertising the number of Combiners passed (a rather meaningless number), how about giving nameless stats on the Live traders?
(let's say the top 5 traders averaged 10K in July)

I am sure there are more, but it is early in the morning and I haven't had my coffee...

1. ALL phases should be similar, combine, LTP and live. Remember, the key phase is the live account, days 1-10. That has the additional WEEKLY loss limit AND the scale up rules. This was addressed by some posts in the Big Mike forum in the link you posted. Currently, the combine has neither, the LTP has the scale up but not the weekly loss limit, and the live account has BOTH (with the exceptions for the 10k/30k, which have no weekly loss limit).

2. Yes, the current rules stipulate that if you lose 1 tick on crude and make 3 grand on ES, you still "failed" the 50k combine. I think the rule is there to reduce the incentive to trade multiple products, which you can always do in the trial or simulator. So its best to only trade the products in the combine after you're familiar with them.

3. The backer wants consistency, hence the percentage of profitable days. I agree that a strategy that calls for only playing breakouts, if infrequent, then you could still in theory pass with a 20% daily win ratio. However, the risk to the backer is fixed by the daily loss limit and max trail draw, regardless of how one passed the combine.

4. Again, the key phase of this program is the live account, days 1-10, so the data worthy of consideration are: 1. what amount of equity was built by the traders who currently remain profitable and 2. which combine they took to generate that equity.

5. Although the technology exists, why 5 minutes? Why not 1 minute? If they had a 5 min auto liquidate and it rallies 10 ticks in the last two minutes, you'd have irate combine traders complaining about how they were prematurely taken out. A trader should be responsible for knowing when a product is valid for trading, and then trade accordingly.

6. Yes, this has been addressed incessantly, the total # of combine traders who passed a combine is not a defining metric, it's the LIVE traders that matter.

By the way, nice picture.

 

[londonkid]

This is true and has been true for the last 5 years. Of course that also means TST quite sucked for the trader 5 years ago, but let's stay positive for now:

Room for improvements:

1. Make the LTP and the Combine rules the same.

2. It shouldn't matter if one trading instrument is in the red, as long as the overall profit goal is reached. Just don't let the trader trade it Live until it is proven to be profitable.

3. Drop the 45% profitable days requirement to 25-30%. The supposed purpose of this rule is to prevent one day wonders to pass the Combine, but really a passed Combine is not an automatic OK, so this requirement is rather unnecessary. Also some very profitable strategies can have a very low expectancy, this rule preventing them to be backed.(let's say a breakout strategy that only occurs 1-2 times a week)

4. Stop the trader highlights (very scammy) unless they are on a higher timeframe. Saying Trader X made 3K on Thursday is meaningless unless we know that the same trader also lost 4K on Friday. Discuss the bad with the good, if you want to be respected.(how about Live traders dropped per month?)

5. Automatically close the positions 5 minutes before market close after all this is the 21st century, or what. If they want the traders to be principled, there are other ways to do so....

6. Instead of advertising the number of Combiners passed (a rather meaningless number), how about giving nameless stats on the Live traders?
(let's say the top 5 traders averaged 10K in July)

I am sure there are more, but it is early in the morning and I haven't had my coffee...

Oh boy you have reverted to 'lets change the rules' mode. Giant face palm. Much better to play to the rules and focus on what you can control.