Topsteptrader

[Xela]

Maximum permitted drawdowns do increase, for funded traders, as numbers of lots allowed by the scaling plan increase.

TST would hardly expect funded traders, however successful, eventually to trade 20 lots with the same drawdown-limits as when they were trading a couple of lots.

 

[WMorin]

Correct. I believe that in all probability that if a trader manages to make it to double digit lot sizes that they would begin an llc and begin trading for themselves. Keep more of the profits.
This is the beautiful thing about topstep. It could be a safe launching point for traders with no capital starting out. Like myself.

 

[ScalperJoe]

Maximum permitted drawdowns do increase, for funded traders, as numbers of lots allowed by the scaling plan increase.

TST would hardly expect funded traders, however successful, eventually to trade 20 lots with the same drawdown-limits as when they were trading a couple of lots.

The maximum draw is still capped by your equity. So if one has limited equity on Day 11, then scaling up is rather a moot point. The reference was comparing the 30k vs. 150k accounts, and whether or not it was reasonable to assume you'd be able to scale up from the 30k to trade 20 lots "with an e-mail or phone call."

 

[Xela]

The maximum draw is still capped by your equity. So if one has limited equity on Day 11, then scaling up is rather a moot point.

It's a moot point on day 11, if they have limited equity on day 11; that can (and often does) change later, as they gradually build more profit. Their long-term fate, contrary to some people's impressions, is far from "sealed" by their first 10 days' profit.

Don't take my word for it: see for yourself - there are plenty of them explaining this in their online videos and audio-interviews.

However, you're clearly right that the people who have passed higher-level Combines and remain profitable are able to scale up more quickly than those who have passed only lower-level Combines and remain profitable.

 

[WMorin]

From my conversations with John Hoagland, the possibility of scaling up your positions and increasing you daily loss limit and drawdown are all negotiable given a good trading record and consistent risk management

 

[Xela]

This comes from an email sent out by Michael Patak on 30th December ...

====================================

I want to share how those with TopstepTrader® found success in 2015:

97% of Trading Combine® participants surveyed stated that the Combine has improved their trading skills
Over 370 traders succeeded in achieving a Funded Account™
Those funded maintained discipline, with less than 4.3% violating their Daily Loss Limit
71% of funded accounts are maintaining or growing

====================================


I don't suggest that TST's program is a good match for everyone's trading style, but it's clearly working for plenty of people.

 

[Pekelo]

I don't suggest that TST's program is a good match for everyone's trading style, but it's clearly working for plenty of people.

As usual, I have to be Debbie Downer, but without a time frame reference, those numbers don't tell much. I assume they are meant for the whole year, so some traders have been trading for 11-12 months and most of them are much shorter length. Some just got funded 2 weeks ago...

So what I would like to see is a 3 or a 6 months survival rate, to keep it real. The longer the better.

Also, just because 71% of funded traders don't lose (maintaining also could mean a small loss) money, that doesn't mean 71% is very profitable. It is quite possible out of those 71% 20-30% is just break evenish, the other 30-20% making a little and the last third making quite good. That would only make 50-60 people who should continue with TST and over the long run that number keps falling.

Again, just let's keep it real. These kind of emails remind me of Tesla, they are always playing with the numbers...

 

[Xela]

As usual, I have to be Debbie Downer

I'd have lost a spread-bet on the lapse-duration, even so: I guessed that early on a Monday morning, it might take more than 16 minutes for my post to attract such responses.

I assume they are meant for the whole year

That was certainly what I took from the words "in 2015", in an email sent out on December 30th.

what I would like to see is a 3 or a 6 months survival rate

Have you asked for one? Michael Patak and John Hoagland are very forthcoming with information, when it's requested by potentially interested parties. (Admittedly, it's not clear, given your posts here about TST, that they'd necessarily take you as a "potentially interested party", though, I suppose).

Also, just because 71% of funded traders don't lose (maintaining also could mean a small loss) money, that doesn't mean 71% is very profitable.

It doesn't, but I still found it impressive: I'd have guessed a much lower figure, myself, given the "open to all" nature of TST. But I do see exactly what you mean about being a "Debbie Downer".

And a Happy New Year to you, Pekelo.

 

[Pekelo]

Have you asked for one? Michael Patak and John Hoagland are very forthcoming with information, when it's requested by potentially interested parties.

Let's get real, if long term survival numbers were good, they would have been included in the email. And what would be a potential interested party? I think they have enough money to invest, I don't suppose they are looking for investors.

I mentioned this years ago, but the whole TST business model is a catch 22. If a trader is really good, sooner or later he will leave and trade his own money. If they are just getting by or small gains, well, who wants to back those?

But I have to give it to them, at first look, those numbers are impressive, and if they can find just 1 guy out of 10 traders to piggyback with big money, that is 5-7 guys who can make it rain for them....

 

[ScalperJoe]

It's a moot point on day 11, if they have limited equity on day 11; that can (and often does) change later, as they gradually build more profit. Their long-term fate, contrary to some people's impressions, is far from "sealed" by their first 10 days' profit.

Since you cannot go below the starting balance of zero, the equity amount of day 11 for funded traders is one of the most relevant numbers.

The TST model must be compared to the substitute (retail account), which is the only accurate way to evaluate the opportunity.

For example, a guy passes a 30k, and on Day 11 he has built up $400 of net equity. He trades one lot of crude. This is the same as the guy who opens an AMP account with $1,400 ($1,000 is the maintenance, and $400 is the leeway for a draw). BOTH have only $400 to lose.

"Their long-term fate" is of course different per individual, depending on a variety of factors, however the chance you will scale up AT ALL is limited with the smaller combines, just as it is with a smaller retail account.

What I've said repeatedly on this thread is the HIGHER combines are the ones that will at least give you enough BP to scale during the first 10 days of a live account to generate more equity to continue trading beyond Day 11 AND grow the account. The smaller combines are the "training" accounts, in my opinion.

Since TST doesn't reveal the equity balances of the funded traders, one has to guess that those in the 71% who are maintaining their live accounts AND taking decent checks are those who passed the 100k/150k combines.