I'd trade only 2 to 4 lots of their 15 lots account
I strongly agree with this perspective.
I've read many dozens of "Combine Journals" (in other forums and on blogs) and formed a really strong impression that the majority of people who fail a Combine do so not because "they don't know what they're doing at all" (though there are doubtless some of those, too - they perhaps don't take their Combines quite so "publicly"?) but through inappropriate position-sizing.
One of the annoying things about TST Combines is that of course it's perfectly possible to be a trader with a genuine edge, and to know what you're doing, and
still fall foul of the trailing maximum drawdown parameter. There's a
reason for this, of course: like anyone sensible, looking for traders to fund and effectively invest in, TST's primary concern
isn't about those traders' overall profitability and speed of making money - it's about their
risk management capabilities and willingness to stick to rigidly imposed rules. (The same is true, of course, with any kind of institutional trading: there's always a risk manager standing over your shoulder, and rightly so.)
The last time TST's Combine pass-rates were independently audited, they were only 20%. I guess this isn't too surprising, when you think what a low entry-barrier there is, and that absolutely anyone who can pay the admin-charge (which also covers the data provision etc.) can chance their arm at it.
However, in January 2016 (and partly as a response to "customer feedback", about which they've always been particularly responsive, interactive and enthusiastic), they changed, and relaxed, some of the Combine regulations in an attempt to increase the Combine pass-rates. This has apparently been successful, as they have already funded in the first half of 2016 nearly as many traders as they did throughout the whole of 2015.
For myself, if taking a 5-lot/$50k Combine (which would be the one I'd go for, myself: I see no great advantage in the higher-level ones) I would trade primarily
one lot, perhaps with the possibility of adding a maximum of one further lot only to positions
already in profit (in other words never having more than a single lot as my risk-exposure. I strongly suspect (but of course can't prove) that quite a few "failed Combiners" would have passed, if they'd adopted this approach from the start. (And it seems to me from their
huge volume of public interaction with "Combiners" that Mike Patak and John Hoagland
probably take this view too.)
I feel sorry for TST, in one way: they've very successfully started off a whole "industry" of funding remote traders who wouldn't otherwise be able to get funded, but in the process of doing so, they've also created a plethora of imitators (some of whom have even copied wholesale the entire wording of their own website!) some of whom are, frankly, scams. Thus the reputation of some parts of the industry they've spawned has become "blackened", and as a result of that, there are some people about (one of whom has just been posting in this very thread) who wrongly imagine that "the whole thing's a scam" and that "I'm sure they've never funded a single person". Obviously totally deluded, to anyone who takes the trouble to gather some information before spouting off in public, but what can you do?