Topsteptrader

[canuck]

Currently, there are "additional rules" that a trader has to follow if they go live as a Junior Trader and before the get to Senior Trader. As I mentioned, they are as follows:

1. Predetermine the share size for the first entry.
2. Can't add to a losing position .
3. Can't add to a winner unless the P&L is greater than $500 for 30k/50k accounts, and $1,000 for the 100k/150k accounts.

If you are going to do a combine, then you might as well follow the above rules DURING the combine, since you'll have to follow those rules in the live account.

I've been trying to read this thread and I think I missed something.

Okay, so when someone finally goes 'live' past the initial hurdles, these are the only additional conditions?

Someone else mentioned 'micromanaging' positions, is that on top of these conditions? Meaning, you would be in a trade, that's in accordance with these and the initial conidtions and they would what, call you to tell you to get out?

 

[ScalperJoe]

The only problem is they are not transparent about the second set of rules.
That's a big issue to me when you lead someone on about your end of the bargain and change the rules once they fulfill their end.

Why would you not require the same rules on the combine that is required for the live account ?


It makes zero sense at all if your true intent is to find traders to back and not just pocket combine revenue from dreamers.

Actually, they spell out the rules quite clearly in the Rules Comparison Chart:

http://help.topsteptrader.com/knowledgebase/articles/241566-rules-comparison-chart

The big difference is from the combine to Junior Trader, where there is a set of "Additional Rules" already mentioned in this thread.

Once you jump from Junior to Senior trader, the "Additional Rules" go away.

 

[ScalperJoe]

By the way this rule can be easily bypassed. (anyone noticed I just love rules??)

If you close the losing trade then immediately reopen with double the size, you basicly added to the same position, but bypassed the rule...

Now if they force you to open trades always with the same size, it doesn't work, but they should let traders choose their own position sizing. We have different strategies, a lower probability strategy needs a smaller position,etc.etc....

So the new rule is that you always have to start with the same size?

My interpretation is you have to write down what size you will start with as a Junior Trader. Let's say for example you write down 2 lots as your maximum starting size. Therefore, your entry would always be either 1 or 2 lots, since two lots would be your max. In that scenario, since you cannot add to a loser, you could theoretically close out the 1 lot loser and immediately open a 2 lot trade, and still be within the rules.

I think the logic of writing down your share size is to see if you can manage risk wisely, and achieve the Senior Trader status by meeting the profit goal (which has no time limit, unlike the combine).

 

[ScalperJoe]

I've been trying to read this thread and I think I missed something.

Okay, so when someone finally goes 'live' past the initial hurdles, these are the only additional conditions?

Someone else mentioned 'micromanaging' positions, is that on top of these conditions? Meaning, you would be in a trade, that's in accordance with these and the initial conidtions and they would what, call you to tell you to get out?

If you review the rules comparison chart then you'll see the differences between the combine vs. junior vs. senior.

Regarding the "micromanaging" of positions, I'm not really sure, that was the op's experience. I think once you start trading live, there shouldn't really be any ambiguity. The rules are spelled out. The backer agrees to take the capital risk, and you as the trader agree to abide by the rules.

 

[ScalperJoe]

I really wish you the best of luck and I hope your experience works out better than mine.

Thanks. I look forward to trading another combine within the next month and implementing the Junior Trader rules to the combine.

 

[Crispy]

I recruited close to 20 guys from ET to trade at my firm. Not a one of them ever lost money on ET. And not a one of them ever made money at my firm. You draw whatever conclusions you want from that.

That right there is comedic tragedy.

 

[Maverick74]

That right there is comedic tragedy.

What's even funnier is a few of them returned to ET and continued the no losing charade. And no, I'm not going to out them. It's not my intent to hurt anyone's ego here, I'm just trying to offer a unique perspective about this business.

 

[Crispy]

What's even funnier is a few of them returned to ET and continued the no losing charade. And no, I'm not going to out them. It's not my intent to hurt anyone's ego here, I'm just trying to offer a unique perspective about this business.

I am not shocked. Some people want this so bad that just the impression that they are successful at it feeds the ego to live a lie. Its nuts.

 

[helmholtz]

As Maverick attests--- I have had the same experience. I worked with a hedge fund that had over 100 traders, some from elite, through its doors. These were vetted people with real track records --- EVERY SINGLE ONE but ONE failed losing money for the fund. ONE GUY and ONE GUY only was able to make money and his edge had nothing to do with anything I or the fund manager had ever even heard of in the past. He ended up making a fortune----- That's the truth.

HH

 

[Crispy]

As Maverick attests--- I have had the same experience. I worked with a hedge fund that had over 100 traders, some from elite, through its doors. These were vetted people with real track records --- EVERY SINGLE ONE but ONE failed losing money for the fund. ONE GUY and ONE GUY only was able to make money and his edge had nothing to do with anything I or the fund manager had ever even heard of in the past. He ended up making a fortune----- That's the truth.

HH

Totally believable.

I worked SELL side for a long time. I covered futures and options positions in sort of a ancillary risk management position. Over those years I watched at least 200 funds perform. Some were big, some were small. Some were elite uni guys. Some were schlubs. The percentage of guys that beat their respective benchmarks was tiny. The performance of guys that had no benchmark, but just shooting straight Alpha was terrible as well. It was absolutely right around the 1% success number you always read about. I`m not counting the long levered guys who just bought stocks and held them in a bull market. Most everybody that was "active" lost money. Period.

My favorite story from that time was when gold was going straight up for years, I watched a guy turn a few million into almost nothing by actively trading gold and miner stocks. A fucking drunk, blind monkey would have literally done better.