Trying to Manage these Trading Combines. Anyone else?

I dunno.....if a prop firm takes on online based traders, I would have thought that they would generally advertise that fact, which they don't.
 
Hope this helps.
This is just one part copied and pasted right off their website under careers.
As always, -best of trading, -flashg

OPENINGS
Below is a list of current openings at SMB Capital. Please click on an opening in the list to view details and apply.

Title Department Location
Active News Trader Kershner Trading Group New York City Office
Experienced Equities Trader SMB Capital New York City Office
Experienced Equities Trader - Miami, FL Kershner Trading Group Remote
Experienced Quant Trader SMB Capital New York City Office
New/Developing Equity Trader January 2021 SMB Capital New York City Office
Students - Equity Trading Desk Internship SPRING 2020 SMB Internship New York City Office
Students - Equity Trading Desk Internship Summer 2021 SMB Capital New York City Office
 
StockTrader100k said:
Isnt this better explained taking into consideration the trailing max drawdown in the funded account?

Lets say you have the largest mini gauntlet account for $150K and you pass and are funded with same risk parameters of $4,500 max trailing drawdown. Once you have generated $4,500 in profits the trailing max drawdown is eliminated and now the account is solely funded by the profits you have in your account ---meaning you cannot go below the $0 line anymore and the only buffer between you and acct closure is the $4500 profits you generated--
if 20% is taken out by funding company ($900) you now have $3,400 left. If you withdraw the $3500 in profits you acct is closed. If you withdraw less than your total amount then the amount you have left after your withdrawal is the amount you have left as a buffer to trade on as all funding has been pulled once you have generated $4,500 (or more) in profits. So essentially at that point isnt it the trader that is funding the account from that point on and not the funding company and the trader still pays 20% out from that point on to funding co?

Whereas if the trader pulled all $3500 remaining out and put it into an account to trade with a brokerage company they essentially have the same thing--$3500 left to trade and an generate profits from that and not pay someone 20%?

Whereas if the $4500 was a fixed drawdown the $3500 profits could be pulled
and the trader would still have a $4500 fixed drawdown (continued funding) to continue trading despite withdrawing all profits to zero

That is the difference between regular gauntlet and mini-gauntlet--correct?
except unfortunately the regular gauntlet to my knowledge only offers $2500 a max drawdown funding under zero line and not $4500

Correct?
More...
Perfect!
 
Good info, thx for taking the time. which of the funded gauntlet type of trading shops would you say is the most reputable and worth working with? I am going to choose one soon....if you like you can email me direct Kevin....@.....marketpro1969@gmail.com , thx gain for the details.....
 
StockTrader100k said:
Most of the prop forms such as Topstep, Earn2Trade, OneUp and others have very flawed models as far as "scaling up"

The problem in my opinion is as follows:

Say for example you take the $150K challenge at TopStep Trader, Earn2Trade and OneUp Trader (the one up pne with 80% payout that is $350 a month so it is comparable to TopStep $150K 80% payout and Earn2Trade $150K challenge with 80% payout)

Generally speaking these 3 plans are similar in the fact that they allow the trader to have max size of 3 lots to start and as their account size grows the trader is allowed to scale up and now start trading as many as 12 to 15 contracts total if their account hits a certain amount of profits

The problem for the trader is --even though you can now trade as many as 12 to 15 contracts
(basically 4X or 5X your original max size of 3 contacts at the start) - this scaling plan actually makes things much more difficult for the trader (if they trade max size 12-15---or really even anything over 3 contracts)

---why? mainly because the starting max daily loss and trailing max drawdown that these companies give you (that does not increase with the scaling plan) is really only realistic for trading 1, 2 or at max 3 contracts---all the scaling plan does it put the odds much more in the company's favor that you will overtrade take too much risk VS the unchanged and unenlarged max daily loss limit and trailing max drawdown

because your max daily loss, max weekly loss(if applicable--I think only Topstep uses max weekly) and your trailing max drawdown --all remain the same amounts as when you started and could only trade a max of 3 contracts. So now if you indulge yourself and start trading for example 8 contracts or 10 or 12 or even 15 - you are putting yourself in a huge risk position as your max daily loss and trailing drawdown have not been increased at all.

In reality the starting max daily loss and trailing max drawdown that these companies give you with the $150K challenge is really only realistic for consistently trading 1 or 2 contracts or at max 3 contracts---if these companies really wanted you to succeed long term they would actually increase your max daily loss and max trailing drawdown when the increase your max # of contracts you are allowed to trade

EXAMPLE: Earn2Trade $150K mini gauntlet https://www.earn2trade.com/gauntlet-mini
TopStep and OneUp's $150K challenges have similar scaling plans and max daily loss and max trailing dawdown to Earn2Trades $150K challenge

Profit Goal - $9,000
Trailing Drawdown - $4,500
Daily Loss Limit - $3,300

Max Position Size - maximum 4 contracts to start
when your profit is $1501 to $3,000 your max contract size is increased 50% from original 4 lots to now max being 6 lots - however your trailing drawdown has not been increased 50% and is still
$4,500 and you max daily loss has also not been increased 50% and is still $3300. What they really should do is if they increase you max contract size 50% then the starting Max Trailing Drawdown of $4,500 should be increased 50% as well to $6,750 - and the starting Max Daily Loss limit of $3300 should also be increased
from $3300 to $4,950

when your profit is $3,001 to $4,500 your max contract size is increased 100% from original 4 lots to now max being 8 lots - however your trailing drawdown has not been increased 100% and is still
$4,500 and you max daily loss has also not been increased 100% and is still $3300.
What they really should do is if they increase you max contract size 100% then the starting Max Trailing Drawdown of $4,500 should be increased 100% as well to $9,000 -
and the starting Max Daily Loss limit of $3300 should also be increased from $3300 to $6,600

when your profit is $4501 or more your max contract size is increased 375% from original 4 lots to now max being 15 lots - however your Max Trailing Drawdown has not been increased 375% and is still
$4,500 and you max daily loss has also not been increased 375% and is still $3300. What they really should do is if they increase you max contract size 375% then the
starting Max Trailing Drawdown of $4,500 should be increased 375% as well to $16,875 - and the starting Max Daily Loss limit of $3300 should also be increased
from $3300 to $12,375

Now in reality it is probably more important that they do this in your funded account as that is when they are getting their 20% cut in real money
They also could put additional requirements to increase you max contract size allowed in funded accounts to give them more assurance that you know what you are doing on a consistent basis such as tying increases to certain other metrics being met
or consistently growing account size over time - etc.

They could even just keep things the way they currently are as the standard combines but also offer for an additional fee--enhanced combines that increase max daily loss and max trailing drawdown the same percentage as max contract size being increased in scaling plan and if you pass that it stays the same in your funded account
More...

Not sure if anyone knows: Ryan Masten of Earn2Trade has been charged with fraud.
September 9, 2020


The CFTC, or Commodities Futures Trading Commission has charged the owner of Earn2Trade, Ryan Masten with fraud.
 
clockwork71 said:
Earn2Trade is stalking me. I get an email everyday about the great sale they have going on. I suspect they are gone within the year.
More...
Hi clockwork71! We are not going to be gone within the year, but we do apologize if it got to a level that is annoying to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top