LIKE!!!
Topsteptrader
- Thread starter deaddog
- Start date
LIKE!!!
The backer makes 40% off the first 15k on a live trader, regardless of time.
Since the live traders provide a cash flow stream to the backer, it should not matter if Trader A takes longer to achieve the same profit as Trader B. Also, the backer still gets the markup of exchange fees and commissions from each trader.
Therefore, why should the backer care if a live trader has "limited annualized returns" or not? As long as the live trader is generating PROFITS, the backer is making a return on their investment, knowing that if the trader goes back to zero, the backer is going to send them back to sim, and thus the backer has limited risk of loss.
Regarding your point of "lowering the profit target", TST already did that for the combine. Now, one can argue that it should be EVEN lower, however if you compare the CC 50k profit target of 3k vs. the 50k Jr Trader, the profit target actually gets reduced, since the 50k Jr Trader only requires 2k with no time limit.
There is still the discrepancy of the weekly loss limit during the Jr Trader phase for 50k and above accounts, which is not prevalent in the regular combine or the CC.
Also, if one doesn't want to do the CC, they STILL have the choice of the regular combine (although I don't believe 10 days is adequate, and traders are better inclined to opt for the 20 day, especially if they are grandfathered in).
Also, if you take a 50k combine and are grandfathered in for 20 trading days, your cost is $190. If you opt for the 2 month continuous combine (since 2 months is the minimum), it will cost $165x2 or $330. However, you are getting up to 40 DAYS to trade vs. 20 during the two months, so if you're taking low risk "piker" trades, you have increased odds to reach the P&L objective.. AND, if you end up reaching the objective within the first month (20 days in the CC), then you don't pay the second month, so the CC actually becomes less expensive than the regular combine with the 20 day option, $165 vs. $190).
So TST has not taken away from the program, they have actually ADDED value to it with the CC. Now, regarding what they make in combine fees, well, unless you have a P&L stake in the firm, I don't see it as being relevant.
The only questions a trader should be asking are as follows:
1. Can I do this such that I have an increased odds of becoming a profitable trader?
2. What is the opportunity cost?
As I've said in prior posts, regardless if one passes or fails the combine(s), a trader is GOING to come out ahead, since trading in a structured environment builds discipline, and that is what is required to achieve the P&L.
Regarding "opportunity cost", we went over this extensively with discussions with Lucias on earlier threads. Is paying $165 a month to have a structured sim account less expensive than blowing out $165 a month in an AMP account?
The answer will depend for each trader. I still believe that if a trader wants to begin trading futures,they are better off "losing" a few hundred bucks in a TST sim account than blowing up in an AMP account.
No, the trader should have an AMP account so he or she makes money every week, and if they think they can pass the topsteptrader and earn some extra money, that is fine too.
Ok, I see your point. However I think what happens is traders take higher risks in the combine in order to meet the metrics, and then once they reach Jr Trader, they do not modify the trading style ("scaling-in" up or down), and thus end up back in sim.
I think it is difficult to use Jr Trader rules for the combine with a fixed time schedule. Since the time limit is now lifted in the continuous combine, it reduces the burden of always picking the optimum entry point, since one can just trade another day even if the P&L wasn't reached the prior day.
As stated earlier, if a trader is going for the 50k combine and above, then he has to still remain aware of the WEEKLY loss limit, since that's part of the Jr. Trader phase.
Sure, that makes sense IF the trader is already profitable in their AMP account. However if that's the case, then they have no reason to pass a TST combine and give away 35% of profits on the next 30k of gains, since they could keep 100% if they made the same trades in their AMP account, while paying LESS in commissions and CME fees.
The 10 day combine at 55% requires no more than FOUR losing days, so it's actually rounded up to 60% win rate, so my guess is the 45% is actually 5 win days like you mentioned.
The 20 day has perfect math, since 55% of 20 is 11, with up to 9 losing days.
A scratch trade with $0 P&L just ends up being a lost day in the total # of days during a combine.
This is why the 10 day is not the optimum combine, unless one has excess positive results from the beginning. Otherwise, the burden to improve the results will increase the odds of taking excess risk, and thus reduce the overall performance. Sure, some will win by "gunning the close" as we have seen with many CL trade reports n the past. How many of them have made Sr Trader? My guess is not many.
I will try to be concise and down to the point... And thanks for the decent discussion, nowadays I have to appreciate that...
1. Very good argument! You know when was this also a good argument? Let's say 3 years ago. So basicly you are questioning the existence of the profit target. After all, if the time limit is infinite, technically speaking there is no profit target.
But there should be a profit target, thus there should be a limit to try to reach it.
2. Ask TST, but my answer would be that low profit traders are not worthy of their time and energy to deal with.
3. Actually no, when they kind of dropped the 20 days Combine from the list, they doubled the daily profit target. This was pointed out by other posters who are able to do basic math...
4. Having choices is most of the time good, but I think TST is over complicating the issue here. The CC is good only for increasing profits from fees, without changing the LTP rules it won't help much in the overall process. Having 4 choices (or 8 if counting the 20 days) for the Combine is also just too many, and confuses newbies.
5. I see there could be cases when the CC is cheaper than the normal Combine, but overall, it will increase TST's profits. Psychologically it is easier just to keep going on and on (or even quickly restart it for $100) with the CC than paying for 1-2 Combines.
6. It is like their form of heroin.
They are no dummies....
7. The good old educational argument! I like it. Although I thought they were trying to find good traders to back. Ask yourself, if you were looking for good traders, would you care about 55% daily win rate? Of course not. Would you care if the trader loses with 2 instruments if he makes a shitload with the other 3? Of course not. So when TST is going to drop those irrelevant and unnecessary metrics, (which is probably in the next 3 months, judging by the rate of their changes) I will believe that they are really looking for backable traders.
Again, thanks for the nice discussion...
P.S.: Why is MP still saying they are funding 2-3 traders per week, when it is obviously not even close? (unless they are funding traders and not advertising it)
1. Very good argument! You know when was this also a good argument? Let's say 3 years ago. So basicly you are questioning the existence of the profit target. After all, if the time limit is infinite, technically speaking there is no profit target.
But there should be a profit target, thus there should be a limit to try to reach it.
2. Ask TST, but my answer would be that low profit traders are not worthy of their time and energy to deal with.
3. Actually no, when they kind of dropped the 20 days Combine from the list, they doubled the daily profit target. This was pointed out by other posters who are able to do basic math...
4. Having choices is most of the time good, but I think TST is over complicating the issue here. The CC is good only for increasing profits from fees, without changing the LTP rules it won't help much in the overall process. Having 4 choices (or 8 if counting the 20 days) for the Combine is also just too many, and confuses newbies.
5. I see there could be cases when the CC is cheaper than the normal Combine, but overall, it will increase TST's profits. Psychologically it is easier just to keep going on and on (or even quickly restart it for $100) with the CC than paying for 1-2 Combines.
6. It is like their form of heroin.
They are no dummies....7. The good old educational argument! I like it. Although I thought they were trying to find good traders to back. Ask yourself, if you were looking for good traders, would you care about 55% daily win rate? Of course not. Would you care if the trader loses with 2 instruments if he makes a shitload with the other 3? Of course not. So when TST is going to drop those irrelevant and unnecessary metrics, (which is probably in the next 3 months, judging by the rate of their changes) I will believe that they are really looking for backable traders.
Again, thanks for the nice discussion...
P.S.: Why is MP still saying they are funding 2-3 traders per week, when it is obviously not even close? (unless they are funding traders and not advertising it)
1. Very good argument! You know when was this also a good argument? Let's say 3 years ago. So basicly you are questioning the existence of the profit target.
2. Ask TST, but my answer would be that low profit traders are not worthy of their time and energy to deal with.
3. Actually no, when they kind of dropped the 20 days Combine from the list, they doubled the daily profit target. This was pointed out by other posters who are able to do basic math...
4. Having choices is most of the time good, but I think TST is over complicating the issue here.
5. I see there could be cases when the CC is cheaper than the normal Combine, but overall, it will increase TST's profits. Psychologically it is easier just to keep going on and on (or even quickly restart it for $100) with the CC than paying for 1-2 Combines.
6. It is like their form of heroin.
7. The good old educational argument! I like it. Although I thought they were trying to find good traders to back. Ask yourself, if you were looking for good traders, would you care about 55% daily win rate? Of course not. Would you care if the trader loses with 2 instruments if he makes a shitload with the other 3? Of course not. So when TST is going to drop those irrelevant and unnecessary metrics, (which is probably in the next 3 months, judging by the rate of their changes) I will believe that they are really looking for backable traders.
Again, thanks for the nice discussion...
P.S.: Why is MP still saying they are funding 2-3 traders per week, when it is obviously not even close? (unless they are funding traders and not advertising it)
1. No, I was not questioning the existence of a profit target. My reference was to traders who are ALREADY backed, meaning they have passed the combine and are trading a live account. The Jr Trader phase has no time limit to reach the profit target. My point was that the backer makes an override on the live trader, both in terms of percentage plus the markups, so it doesn't matter how long a trader takes to make $1k or $5k, etc. I believe you were citing the CC, and making a claim that if it's a CC then in theory there is "no profit target" if "the time limit is infinite." But that is an illogical argument, since there IS a defined profit target for each CC, and therefore the "time limit" is whatever time it takes to reach that profit target.
2. You claim "low profit traders" are "not worthy of their time and energy" but that is pure speculation and depends on scale. Amazon makes less than 1% margin, yet has millions of customers. If the backer has 10 traders making 5k/month or 50 pikers making 1k/month, the P&L override is the same. He actually makes MORE off the pikers, since they will remain at the 60% level longer than the high flyer, and they are paying $85/month per exchange, which is a significant markup vs. what AMP charges its customers.
3. Yes, you're right about the increased profit targets when you compare it to the prior version. However, as I've stated I don't believe the 10 day combine is the optimum combine, and if one is grandfathered in, they should choose the 20 day instead.
4. Yes, I agree about the "over complicating" part. It requires repeated due diligence just to keep up with the rules. If you compare the standard 10 day combine to their nearest competitor, Trading Advantage Capital, they only have ONE combine, and the rules are straight forward. However, they require up front fees for "education and training" and a lot of guys won't buy into that model.
5. Ok, I did not factor in the "$100 restart" feature. Personally, I'm against this, and I would not pay it. Either it's a CC with a monthly fee, or it's not. This is more like a "CC with a monthly fee and a possible $100 insurance premium" which makes the CC less appealing, especially for a SIM account!
6. I don't do drugs, so I can't comment on the heroin.
7. Yes, I agree with that logic. Those are irrelevant metrics, however some of those concerns are alleviated with a custom combine.
Regarding your comment about funding "2-3 traders per week", only TST would know the numbers, we only receive the emails when someone gets funded. It could just be an average. However, as I've stated a dozen times, passing the combine is not the important step, it's passing the Jr Trader phase. Generating P&L as a Sr Trader is the ONLY way to take a check with the TST program, the rest is just a training exercise.
Agreed, thanks for the discussion.
I am on vacation (again) and I just can't stay away from a good discussion, doesn't matter that there are a lake and beer nearby.... Anyhow, since we probably agree on more things than not, I will just bring up an interesting analogy.
I was watching on TV this show called How to win at everything (or something like that) and it was teaching the viewer how to play tictactoe and such. Then the entertainment park game of Razzle Dazzle came up.
Razzle Dazzle reminded me of the CC. It is a game of chance heavily lopsided against the player, making the owner a pretty much sure profit. If one doesn't look at the math, the win is just so close, and then you have to pay again the entry fee. And it just keeps going on and on, and you never win the big screen TV.
The CC is in a way very similar. I am not saying the CC can not be beaten, but it is designed to keep the player in the game. Let's say by the end of the month you are only $100 away from your profit target, you obviously will pay for the next month, not to mess up such a good position/chance. In the previous Combines, you got a free rollover at similar position. Or let's say you end the month over the profittarget, but your statistics is only 50% win rate, you obviously will pay for the next month to fix the metrics, although in the process you might dip below the profit target.
So in short, the CC is a pretty smart and evil idea on the behalf of TST.
And let's count the quick restart possibility too, when you had a bad day, you screw it up big, the whole Combine is in the skewer, but for a quick $100 you can start it all over. Hell, nowadays you can't even get a decent blowjob for $100....
I actually agree with TST, a naive/stupid person and his money should be parted. That is just pure social Darwinism or trading in general, and who am I to question Nature's Laws???
By the way the show's advice for playing Razzle Dazzle was, just to walk away and don't even try it. I don't agree, because there is plenty of education there about life, and it is cheaper playing Razzle Dazzle than learn it in real life. (Where did I hear this argument? Anyway...)
So if anyone thinks they are getting a good deal, that is all what counts, happily just Combine away! In the maintime, my beer is getting warm, the lake is nicely refreshing and let's just wait for the next change from TST. You know it is coming....
I was watching on TV this show called How to win at everything (or something like that) and it was teaching the viewer how to play tictactoe and such. Then the entertainment park game of Razzle Dazzle came up.
Razzle Dazzle reminded me of the CC. It is a game of chance heavily lopsided against the player, making the owner a pretty much sure profit. If one doesn't look at the math, the win is just so close, and then you have to pay again the entry fee. And it just keeps going on and on, and you never win the big screen TV.
The CC is in a way very similar. I am not saying the CC can not be beaten, but it is designed to keep the player in the game. Let's say by the end of the month you are only $100 away from your profit target, you obviously will pay for the next month, not to mess up such a good position/chance. In the previous Combines, you got a free rollover at similar position. Or let's say you end the month over the profittarget, but your statistics is only 50% win rate, you obviously will pay for the next month to fix the metrics, although in the process you might dip below the profit target.
So in short, the CC is a pretty smart and evil idea on the behalf of TST.
And let's count the quick restart possibility too, when you had a bad day, you screw it up big, the whole Combine is in the skewer, but for a quick $100 you can start it all over. Hell, nowadays you can't even get a decent blowjob for $100....
I actually agree with TST, a naive/stupid person and his money should be parted. That is just pure social Darwinism or trading in general, and who am I to question Nature's Laws???
By the way the show's advice for playing Razzle Dazzle was, just to walk away and don't even try it. I don't agree, because there is plenty of education there about life, and it is cheaper playing Razzle Dazzle than learn it in real life. (Where did I hear this argument? Anyway...)
So if anyone thinks they are getting a good deal, that is all what counts, happily just Combine away! In the maintime, my beer is getting warm, the lake is nicely refreshing and let's just wait for the next change from TST. You know it is coming....