That wouldn't be my choice of comparison, as it's intrinsically not comparing like with like: TST is targeted at people without the capital to open their own retail account.
Nobody in their right mind tries to trade futures with $1,400.
I haven't seen anyone disputing that.
I think you probably mean "My guess is that ...", rather than "One has to guess that"? I have no idea whether or not that's so: it's not publicly available information. There may be something in that, though: for example, I need to trade a minimum of 3 lots/contacts, myself, so as to be able to scale in and out of my positions, so if I were trying a Combine, I'd need to go for either $100k or $150k, under the current arrangements. Anyway, TST has announced that some changes in the Combines set-up are to be forthcoming "after January 1st", so maybe it's even worth waiting to see what they have up their sleeve, rather than continuing to debate the current set-ups?
1. Well, when TST explains their program in responses to the Big Mike forum posts, this is
exactly what is claimed, so I guess you are disputing the firm's own statements, which is fine. TST is an opportunity, so the costs of participating must be compared with the effective substitute, which is to open a retail account. (Note, some copycat firms have tried to duplicate TST's model however they have so many flaws it's not even worth comparing).
2. Actually, many people open accounts with small balances, or AMP wouldn't provide the option to trade 1 lot of ES with $500 opening balance. Of course, the odds of a person trading futures with $500, or even with $1,400 AND taking decent checks is low. This goes back to the comparison of a RETAIL account and TST, hence the example. Since you cannot go into a negative balance, the guy with $400 on day 11 is the SAME as the guy with $1,400 in his AMP account, as Pekelo correctly stated. It doesn't matter if the guy doing TST has "no capital" or "limited capital." We're talking ODDS of profitability, and the odds in BOTH accounts are low, given the limited EQUITY balance. I have stated, however, that traders who take and pass combines have a greater probability of surviving
longer since the combine is there to build discipline, or create the so-called magical "edge" that people talk about on this thread. You can have all the edge in the world. But without EQUITY, you won't last in this business. Read Maverick's post, it's an eye-opener for all pikers.
(On a side note, I recently saw the film "The Big Short" which was quite good. The "edge" of the hedge funds who capitalized on the housing crash was that they saw it before it became self-evident. I won't discuss the film and give away how they did it, but one thing they DID have was EQUITY, and the ABILITY TO TAKE A DRAW. Bill Ackman's fund, by the way, was down over 20% last year, one of the worst years for Pershing. Can he take the hit? Yes, because he has enough EQUITY to recover. Most traders who open up piker accounts or who think they can take their 30k combine, pass it, and scale up size to take a decent check are just unwilling to accept this reality).
Right, nobody can dispute that regarding the 100k/150k combines because if you look at the business model OBJECTIVELY, and you truly want to start taking checks, then these two combines are the ones providing the higher odds of success.
And you're right on the final point, hopefully TST will make continuing changes to favor the trader, which has been the case in the past. One change is to narrow the gap between the price of the combines, and I think many more people would gravitate toward the opportunity.
Just my 2 cents.
