You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Topsteptrader
- Thread starter deaddog
- Start date
my point is simple: why not have the combine trial, the funded trial and the funded forward operation parameters all the same?
why have one set of strict risk => minimum performance parameters for the combine, and a completely different set of risk parameters for the funded trial?
currently like playing NFL rules all season long, then college football rules for the SuperBowl
why have one set of strict risk => minimum performance parameters for the combine, and a completely different set of risk parameters for the funded trial?
currently like playing NFL rules all season long, then college football rules for the SuperBowl
my point is simple: why not have the combine trial, the funded trial and the funded forward operation parameters all the same?
why have one set of strict risk => minimum performance parameters for the combine, and a completely different set of risk parameters for the funded trial?
currently like playing NFL rules all season long, then college football rules for the SuperBowl
The same reason in a college math class they make you solve problems backwards. If changing one rule or parameter suddenly implodes your entire strategy, well....maybe you need a different strategy. The market is dynamic and changing every day. Traders have to be the epitome of change and adaptability.
Having said all that, I do agree that their combines should be simpler. In fact, I have argued on this very forum that they could make the rules so simple, the parameters so wide and still most guys on here would not pass it. That's the irony about all this. TST is wasting their time optimizing the parameters because the one input most traders on here have no control over is their discipline and self control. And you hear that every time one of them fails a combine. Promising never to break their "own" rules ever again.
If changing one rule or parameter suddenly implodes your entire strategy, well....maybe you need a different strategy.
But the problem is, no strategy or approach exists to consistently allow +100% annualized gains with a -5% or tighter limited loss. The laws of probability and distribution do not consistently allow that. Which is why a minimum profit objective that's 100% annualized with max loss of -5% any time is unrealistic. Possible? When optimal conditions favor, yes. Consistently probable? Pure statistical odds say no.
But the problem is, no strategy or approach exists to consistently allow +100% annualized gains with a -5% or tighter limited loss. The laws of probability and distribution do not consistently allow that. Which is why a minimum profit objective that's 100% annualized with max loss of -5% any time is unrealistic. Possible? When optimal conditions favor, yes. Consistently probable? Pure statistical odds say no.
Your understanding of the math is off. That is NOT what they are expecting you to do going forward. Going forward with a live account you can have 100% drawdowns after you hit the 5k threshold or whatever it is now. I haven't looked in awhile so I don't know what the current rules are but they are letting you give back EVERYTHING "plus" a loss cushion. It's just for the sake of the 10 or 20 day combine where your parameters are that tight. And my "suspicion" is that they are trying to keep guys who can't trade their way out of a brown paper bag from averaging down into losing trades to try to generate p&l. Personally I think their daily limits are fine. I remember on one of them you had to make 250 a day with a 1k daily loss limit. I mean come on, nobody making 250 a day should be dropping 1k at a clip. I mean that one is reasonable. Again, I honestly think most guys want to over leverage, avg down and exercise no self control and that is the real demon here, not TST. But as the saying goes, you can't tell a drunk he is a drunk.
Your understanding of the math is off. That is NOT what they are expecting you to do going forward. And my "suspicion" is that they are trying to keep guys who can't trade their way out of a brown paper bag from averaging down into losing trades to try to generate p&l.
another cure for that is keep the loss limits in place, keep the profit objectives in place... and remove the 10 or 20 or any days restriction. Let the traders operate forward towards a profit goal, with tight loss restrictions, and no deadline to get there. Poor traders won't make money and will fail out regardless. Skilled traders operating thru shit periods of time where any symbol chops sideways for days can weather those stretches unscathed.
the #1 reason for combine traders pressing the margin is a slow start that puts them behind the profit-target curve, then they have to press inside dwindling time limits to make the cut. If time is not a factor while funded, why is it a factor to get funded?
ticking clocks create an artificial pressure that needn't exist... serves no purpose once funded, so what is the purpose of it to get funded?
another cure for that is keep the loss limits in place, keep the profit objectives in place... and remove the 10 or 20 or any days restriction. Let the traders operate forward towards a profit goal, with tight loss restrictions, and no deadline to get there. Poor traders won't make money and will fail out regardless. Skilled traders operating thru shit periods of time where any symbol chops sideways for days can weather those stretches unscathed.
the #1 reason for combine traders pressing the margin is a slow start that puts them behind the profit-target curve, then they have to press inside dwindling time limits to make the cut. If time is not a factor while funded, why is it a factor to get funded?
ticking clocks create an artificial pressure that needn't exist... serves no purpose once funded, so what is the purpose of it to get funded?
That part I do agree with you. And I have no idea why they changed that. I agree the set time pollutes the data because it no longer is independent, a violation of basic statistical theory. That is really the only thing they should change. And no, I don't think the ET success rate would go up with that, but it makes the data more consistent.
Okay, so TST went away from widening their combine period to the double or what it was and now back to the 10 or 20 day limit?
Hmm...
Hmm...
I haven't looked at the timeline parameters lately, but it doesn't matter if you have 10 or 20 sessions to reach a lofty targeted gain. The gist of it is, some periods will be favorable with higher volatility, expanded range sessions while other periods of low volatility congestion and chop will be unfavorable.
Saying one can take 30 or 60 days to pick your allotted 10 or 20 sessions does not help. Nobody knows which random session(s) will be poor, average, good or stellar trading conditions. Once you take the first entry in any given day, you check one off from the limit. Still the same ticking clock on a brief window.
The process is TST's to manage as they see fit. I don't profess to know why they setup everything as such. My only point is, more traders would eventually complete the process successfully without a fixed deadline to hit lofty minimum profit targets. If TST ever decides to offer the combine on a 30 or 60 day basis with all other parameters left exactly the same, that would be great. If not, I suppose whatever results they are enjoying past & present will continue onward as well.
Saying one can take 30 or 60 days to pick your allotted 10 or 20 sessions does not help. Nobody knows which random session(s) will be poor, average, good or stellar trading conditions. Once you take the first entry in any given day, you check one off from the limit. Still the same ticking clock on a brief window.
The process is TST's to manage as they see fit. I don't profess to know why they setup everything as such. My only point is, more traders would eventually complete the process successfully without a fixed deadline to hit lofty minimum profit targets. If TST ever decides to offer the combine on a 30 or 60 day basis with all other parameters left exactly the same, that would be great. If not, I suppose whatever results they are enjoying past & present will continue onward as well.
I haven't looked at the timeline parameters lately, but it doesn't matter if you have 10 or 20 sessions to reach a lofty targeted gain. The gist of it is, some periods will be favorable with higher volatility, expanded range sessions while other periods of low volatility congestion and chop will be unfavorable.
Saying one can take 30 or 60 days to pick your allotted 10 or 20 sessions does not help. Nobody knows which random session(s) will be poor, average, good or stellar trading conditions. Once you take the first entry in any given day, you check one off from the limit. Still the same ticking clock on a brief window.
The process is TST's to manage as they see fit. I don't profess to know why they setup everything as such. My only point is, more traders would eventually complete the process successfully without a fixed deadline to hit lofty minimum profit targets. If TST ever decides to offer the combine on a 30 or 60 day basis with all other parameters left exactly the same, that would be great. If not, I suppose whatever results they are enjoying past & present will continue onward as well.
Yeah, but that's how it's always been, right?
I'm pretty sure that the last time I looked into TST and which made me actually re-consider them, was that you could now stretch the combine for like 30 trading days as long as you stayed within the rest of the parameters.
And I don't get why they won't do that, unless it is in fact a scam that is only intended to make money on failed combine attempts.
I like them on FB so I tend to get their newest funded traders update and most of them are not really impressive. Many of them are guys with low losses/low wins on most days and then one GRAND win on a single day which gives them funded status. Essentially luck from looking at it on the surface.