Topsteptrader

[londonkid]

Having participated in the combine, its a great idea-- i made enough the first day to qualify but being distracted -- gave it all back--

Surf

i have to call you out on this statement Surf and bring in reality. You say you made enough on the 1st day to qualify but because you were distracted (you had important things to do!) you gave it all back. Its like you are saying, yeah I smashed it on the first day then had more important things to be doing so i just let it go.

Now in reality if you made enough on the 1st day to qualify then all you had to do was simply bat out the next 9 days on a 1 lot or similar. Granted if I was TST and you did that I would say to you I now want you to complete a 'funded traded preparation' as we didn't get a fair look on your consistent execution. They would have seen you have 1 large day clearly followed by you batting it out for the remainder. You would then have a lower profit target and more time for them to get a better sample from you before proceeding to a funded account.

Why cant you just say what actually happened? For example something reality based might be. 'I tried the combine. I started well then took a few losers and I missed the profit target. I feel positive about it and I am ready to try again' OR 'I started well, took a couple of losers then my discipline slipped, I doubled down which wasn't part of my plan and hit the max drawdown.'

just sayin it sounds really lame.

 

[londonkid]

I agree with the second point. If you're going to measure the ability of the trader, then it should not matter if he wins on ALL instruments, as long as he meets the profit criteria. Again, this goes back to point 1. Savvy traders at an equities prop firm may only win 50% of the time on the stocks they trade, and even take big draws. If the the profits exceed the losses, then it doesn't matter the number of the stocks they lost on, as long as the NET is positive over time.

oh good that's great then (sarcasm!) both of you agree that the rules they set for the combine to measure the ability of the trader are wrong and your own set of rules should be applied. honestly you could not make this up this is hilarious. For the love of god they are offering 80% split and eat losses, THEY make the rules not YOU. If that is the criteria you can just select one instrument to trade OR a couple of instrument but don't plan to take one or two trades on one instrument as you leave yourself open to failing on this rule. This rule only applies in the combine, they are testing your ability to follow the rigid rules they set NOT if you can be net profitable over time which is obviously much easier. Once you have passed their testing criteria and have a profit cushion THEN you can trade how you like in a net positive way with sensible daily stop loss.

There is very little margin for error in the combine, since you aren't allowed to trade out of the jam.

what you are talking about. you have 6% profit objective with 2% daily stop loss and 3% trailing max drawdown. Let's say you risk 0.5% per trade. That gives you 4 straight full losers (you don't have to wait until full stop is hit) before you stop trading that day. It gives you 6 straight losers with full stop until the max drawdown is hit. Of course even expert traders have runs of bad form so they could get unlucky and take a run of losers right off the bat. If this happened then they have the option to get a full refund on the 10 day combine or take another one free as long as you dont break the rules. obv many will break the rules because they cannot control themselves or worst still didnt understand the rules. guess what? they dont want these people and they are very unlikely to be long term profitable.

I understand from TST's perspective they only want traders who have superior risk management skills. However, that also means a trader faces an uphill battle in the live account, since you only get 10 days to build up the cushion, while taking very minimal draws......

Have you actually read the rules?

https://topsteptrader.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/1950861-funded-trader-rules

You say a trader faces an uphill battle in the live account as they only get 10 days to build up a cushion. NOWHERE does it say you have 10 days to build up a cushion. There is no profit target in the funded trader rules. The 1st 10 days of funded account you just trade to the parameters they set, you dont need to push it as there is no profit target.

simply unrealistic for most traders.

now this is something we agree on but for different reasons. yes passing the combine is unrealistic for most traders, huge understatement. Why? because the vast majority of traders have no discipline let alone an edge. The parameters are such that you wont pass if you rely on large drawdowns, scale in, average in etc. And guess what they dont want those traders. is it possible to make money having large drawdown, scaling in, yes absolutely.

 

[londonkid]

Yes, some rules definitely seem "way too strict" however there are several traders who have made it past the combine AND the first 10 days of the live account. But what happens to the majority of them in a month, three months, six months, one year?

The rule that I find "way too strict" is only having 10 days to build the cushion in the live account. Let's say you trade conservatively and are only up $1,000 ($100/day net after fees). That $1k then becomes your TOTAL draw for the live account, which is probably insufficient to make the live account viable enough to continue building up. I'd say one needs to have at least $3k to $5k built up, however that might be difficult to accomplish within the first 10 days of the live account, given the extra weekly risk parameters which are not in the combine. Also, you are now trading OPM which means you will probably be more conservative with risk, especially in the beginnings of the live account when you must build up the cushion.

Regarding the combine, I agree with having a daily loss limit, with a slight twist: allow the trader to keep trading UNTIL the close, regardless of the draw. In other words, change the daily loss limit to END OF DAY instead of intraday. A savvy trader will find ways to trade out of a jam, as long as there is time in the session and volatility. This happened in not one but TWO of my combines, where in one case the trade would have been positive, and in the most recent case, the trade would have wiped out the majority of the draw. The rule is "way too strict" when the trader could show the ability to get back to positive by the close, yet was shut out due to the intraday loss limit.

Of course, from a backer's perspective they would not want this rule for a LIVE account, since it burdens them with potentially unlimited intraday risk. However, for a simulator, it should not matter since it's just part of the measurement criteria to qualify for a live account.

rights so you think the daily loss rule is way to strict and you propose another rule (wtf?!?) that the trader should be allowed unlimited daily drawdown as long as end of day he is within the loss limit. You agree the backer would not want this rule as it exposes them to unlimited risk but say it shouldn't apply to the simulator (combine) to qualify for funded account. lololol.

dude this is insane. think about this. what would stop traders scaling/average/martingale in until they are good for the EOD max loss. they dont want traders who scale/average/martingale to get out of losses. Nearly every trade in drawdown will eventually come back to its entry at some point in time. lol.

 

[londonkid]

The majority of traders seem to get funded by trading CL, given that it's "jumpy" and thus more volatile than other instruments. I tried NQ on a prior combine however I felt it was jumpy as well, although the action is probably more "coherent enough" now that AAPL is not as volatile after the 7 for 1 split.

If you're going for the jugular, then crude is the beast you want to conquer, knowing full well that it can rip you apart just the same.

I don't agree CL is necessarily the best way to pass a combine. Yes it is more volatile.

Lets consider the $150k 10 day combine 6% profit objective

here is a simple example

Make 16 trades in 10 days
Risk 0.75% per trade
Aim for 2:1 RR

Do that and you will hit 6% growth with a 50% strike rate. Just don't take more than 2 losers in 1 day and 4 losers right off the bat and you will pass. Of course you have to factor in 16 round turns of commission so you should do a few more ticks to take care of that.

Plenty of instruments offer the volatility to achieve 2:1 RR profit targets. The 30 year bond for example would be fine.

If you do get down to 2.5% drawdown then just bat out the rest of the combine on a 1 lot so you dont break any rules. You wont pass but you will get a full refund/free retry. Its actually a very generous proposition for those that can follow rules.

Personally for the combine I would not shoot for a strategy that has higher than 2:1 RR otherwise you there is too much risk you will hit max dd. Of course when funded with profit cushion you can do what you want subject to max daily loss.

 

[londonkid]

This is a practice account. Period.

No No NO! This is not the same as a practice account/simulation account. This is a TEST to see if you can meet their objectives for a live funded account whilst following their rules. This is very different to opening up a practice/sim account and trading it. 99.9% of people dont stick to MM in practice accounts, they average/scale/martingale they reset all the time there is no accountability or rigour. This on the other hand is an opportunity to be funded and receive an 80% split, very different.

 

[londonkid]

I disagree. "Ability to trade larger via the scale-up plan without having to put up capital" is again misleading. The fact is you scale up by creating a buffer between you and your maximum drawdown allowed. In other words you are generating alpha and being rewarded with a chance to "scale up without putting up capital". You already did the work necessary. You made money on the account. Of-course you should be allowed to scale up. If it was your own $3,000 account that you doubled to $6,000 you would still be able to trade larger. They are not doing you any favors, you make money, you can reinvest that money in the form of larger sizes. Thats obvious.

this is tosh and here is why. Yes a trader could post the margin ONLY in an account with a broker and trade the exact same way they would at top step and receive 100% of profits. therefore TST is a bad deal. FALSE. One of the main reasons traders fail apart from not having an edge is that they lack discipline and the ability to follow sensible money management and rules. Most traders know what sensible money management is (at least I hope they do) but most cannot follow it. Following the TST process you are FORCED to follow their rules or you are taken back to the start.

Trading your own account invokes different psychological pressures which are heightened if a trader has a small account. Also if you trade your own account your eat all the losses at TST they eat all the losses, this is a huge deal.

Yes IF you are a consistently profitable disciplined trader and are well capitalised then trading your own account for 100% profit is preferable. But that is a huge IF.

TST gives traders a shot at trading $150k without eating any losses.

Its marketed as a chance to earn a huge account (ie be proprely capitalized). Which is misleading.

Its not misleading at all. What you are saying is misleading. They have plenty of funded traders who earn 80% profit splits on $150k accounts. It is a genuine off they are making. Most people wont be able to pass the combine but everyone knows that. I have never heard them say you get a 'huge' account. $150k is not a huge account and they dont refer to it as such. It is a meaningful amount of capital though that a solid trader can use to substantial profits from.

 

[londonkid]

I posted on this thread a few months ago about why I believed TopStep was misleading people.

I decided not to waste my time going for it (even though I had previously been very excited about it and spent months planning a strategy to pass the combine)

You spent months planning a strategy to pass the combine lol. come on dude this is crazy.

pony up $400. risk 0.75% per trade, shoot for 2:1RR, 16 trades over 10 days, do 50% strike rate and you have passed. Dont hit the 6% profit target, just bat it out and get a refund.not saying its easy but months planning. pffffffffft

Last time, I posted a very long post explaining my thoughts, but it was a bit messy because I was still trying to wrap my head around the issue.
Let me explain again, this time it should be quite obvious.

• Imagine you have 100k in savings and decide your going to give trading a shot.
• You tell yourself "Trading is risky, so to be safe, if I lose 20k i'm going to call it quits"
• You deposit the 100k with a broker and start trading. You make some money, lose some money, but ultimately, you are down to 80k on your account.
• You close that account.

The reality is you did not have 100k in your account. You only had 20k in your account.

In other words, the maximum draw down you have allotted to your trading account is what dictates the size of your account. The rest of the money in the account serves no purpose, you might as well have it in the bank. (the only benefit it provides is letting you trade larger sizes, which is the dumbest thing to ever do if your account is small to begin with)

If you were willing to lose the full 100k, then your account was truly 100k. If you were only willing to lose 50k, then your trading account size is 50k.

Therein lies the rub/misdirection/'scam' of topsteptrader.

do you honestly think most people who attempt a combine have 100k? ok so lets take the example of someone who does. Do you honestly think most people will stop at a 20k loss on a 100k account. some will granted but many will not and destroy their savings/pension fund.

They get people excited with the possibility of "large" funded accounts.

"Wooo finally I can trade for a living with a nice sized account. No more undercapitalized rat race"

But they have a maximum drawdown policy of about 3%. At first glance, the trader finds this perfectly "fair", after all you gotta "prove yourself" with the account first.

But course what it ultimately means is that the account you are trading is only 3% as large as you think it is. When thought of this way, the picture turns ugly.

The 3% drawdown only applies in the combine. When you are funded you trade how you want with 2% daily loss. What you are saying is false.

$150,000 funded account (in reality a $4,000 account)
$100,000 funded account, (in reality a $3,000 account)
$50,000 funded account, (in reality a $1,500 account)
$30,000 funded account, (in reality a $900 account)
$10,000 funded account. (in reality a $300 account)

When you think about it that way, it changes the risk-reward decisions when contemplating whether the money shelled out for combines are worth it.

No it just doesn't work this way. Margin & capitalisation are different concepts. If you think the average joe can open up a $4000 account and trade it in the same way as the TST forced discipline process scaling into a $150k then you are deluded. In reality average joe has a few losers then averages/scales/martingales blows up the $4000 over time.

 

[londonkid]

Here is the TST model in a nutshell simplified.

for every 1000 traders that sign up. c. 1 to 3% of them get funding, 99% fail.

funded traders - TST collects 20% splits and collects a small amount from round turns. TST loses small amounts from funded traders who blow up in early stages of funding

unfunded traders - TST collects combine money from people who fail combine due to them not having an edge and/or breaking the rules. (most traders)

Mentoring - TST upsells education

I have no idea if TST is a net profitable business that depends on their costs. It has the potential to be a strong cashflow generator as long as costs are controlled. Retail lemmings seem to be in strong supply.

In terms of being a customer of theirs then its a great proposition if you are a funded trader imo. The real net losers are the people who will continually feed them combine money and continually break the rules and sign up when they have no real chance of qualifying without an edge/discipline. Of course these people should just demo until they have proven to themselves they have a decent chance of passing the combine then enter. The trouble is most people wont do that for a variety of reasons, TST know that and that's business.

Its a superb model with limited downside for TST.

 

[Pekelo]

Hey Londonkid, posting about TST for 3.5 hours on a Saturday morning, I am impressed, that is some serious dedication!!!

London must be a boring city, or was it the rain? Anyhow, the software did let me dip below the daily limit, that was from personal experience. Since it might not be the case anymore, you were arguing a moot point.

First rule of Fight Club: Never argue a moot point, specially when you are wrong.

 

[londonkid]

Hey Londonkid, posting about TST for 3.5 hours on a Saturday morning

I am sorry I didn't realise the time police were watching lol. The irony of being called out for posting too much by a 10k post keyboard warrior is hilarious. You seriously need to consider creating a multi nic to pump up your like ratio, those are rookie numbers.

Anyhow, the software did let me dip below the daily limit, that was from personal experience. Since it might not be the case anymore, you were arguing a moot point. First rule of Fight Club: Never argue a moot point, specially when you are wrong.

dude my point was that even if the software does let you go into drawdown/daily loss limit it would take someone experienced on the combine review a couple of minutes to work out what you did. do you honestly think they will not check for signs that you held trades a long time in drawdown to try and scrape a target.

The whole point of my post about your software drawdown claim was that it is futile. Cant you see that it is a losers mentality to point out glitches in the rules/process. You see the existence of a software glitch or not is a sideshow. The irony that you call me out for arguing a moot point is hilarious dude. Granted I should not have engaged with the circus but its done now.

This whole thread is littered with numerous examples of 'cant help stupid'. Variations of:

• the combine rules are wrong, this is why and here are my new rules. wtf!
• TST is a scam because they make money/i cant pass a combine. #clusterfcuk
• i cant pass a combine and i dont want to anyway because its better to trade your own money. #facepalm
• I cant pass a combine so i decided to keep taking them, I am now on my 30th+ combine and I have given TST all my money. lol
• I failed the combine because I didnt read/understand the rules - heres a clue, perhaps non skilled manual work is for you
• I smashed the combine target on day 1 but then I had better things to be doing so I just let it go. please lol.
• TST is a scam because they dont actually give you $150k to trade with, I could open a $3000 account with amp futures and keep 100% of the profits. seriously, !#?!@

GT