Trying to Manage these Trading Combines. Anyone else?

[LCK2000]

I guess Earn2Trade want's to be more sure that besides the trailing, to pocket money a different way. You might ask yourself, "what if a trader decides to blow that hard earned money in one day, where is my share?"

Where is the futures company that have one combine/tryout, that does not have a trailing, does not have a time limit to be funded, that has a onetime fee, and if funded will cover all the cost?

Not to speak for E2T, I don't really have a dog in the fight, and agree with your pros and cons of the various outfits. 2 comments, maybe will help.

As for the issue about feeling like its unfair they take their share once a month if you don't do a withdraw, one way around it would be to do regular withdraws. Do two a month (assume you can do multiple in a month from what I've read), and if you don't really have enough profit to make it worthwhile, well then the 20% won't be a big hit regardless. Just my opinion.

As for the 1 fee, I know E2T has a regular gauntlet, it doesnt get talked about really at all, but its a 1 time fee, 60 day evaluation for people looking for a more long term solution. I think the rules about trailing stop losses are fair, if they didn't and people were just swinging wild all over the place it's not really the type of trader they would want to fund anyways. All the programs are a test, the parameters are there and its up to us to play by them. I don't think its really fair to expect them to refund your fees for passing either, youre basically asking them to give you the evaluation for free if you pass. They are a business and have to make money. Honestly if people are looking to make trading a career, the fees for combines should be small relative to the profits you make in the long run.

 

[Earn2Trade]

I do apologized Mr. Alexander for the misunderstanding. Anyone reading the "exampled offer" might probably think the same thing if it is not worded clearly as in "Fixed withdrawal period" and "Money is not withdrawn on the same profit twice". I still think Earn2Trade approach is unfair to the trader because it would be more challenging to compound profits in order to increase size. Why not take profit only from a trader's withdrawal instead? Doesn't that take away an adverse psychological feature from the trader? Trust! Does a trader really have to monitor if you all are taking out the right amt every time when not looking? What if with all that trading, a trader's profit was one dollar that month, would you still take 20% off that then?

I guess Earn2Trade want's to be more sure that besides the trailing, to pocket money a different way. You might ask yourself, "what if a trader decides to blow that hard earned money in one day, where is my share?"

Don't get me wrong, every business model have their pros and cons. For instance, TST has two combines, maybe three if counting the performance account, before being funded. Their 1k loss limit per week on the 50k is left to be desired. Now instead of the closed trailing, they have included the trailing in the open orders on the live account.

OneUpTrader has not changed much just the fact that their commission for the standard instrument is the same as the micros? Really? I guess we all know what they really want us to be trading. Leeloo Trading has a forever trailing and only in live account it will stop at 100 dollars+ profits of your initial maximum drawdown profit. They do not have a scaling plan which is good but very very bad. I love their 10 day minimum to be funded as well as SpeedUp too.

Where is the futures company that have one combine/tryout, that does not have a trailing, does not have a time limit to be funded, that has a onetime fee, and if funded will cover all the cost?

No need to apologize, I am happy to make the clarification.

Earn2Trade generates its revenue from the sale of examination and education fees, and Helios generates its revenue from the profit of its traders. I think it's safe to say that what you said is correct. Helios simply wants to lock in its profit.

 

[PromisingTrader]

Helios never takes more than 20% on total profit. Money is not withdrawn on the same profit twice.

Sorry I'm still a little bit confused. Could you please help and explain on the below example?

Account balance:
Month 1: +2,000
Month 2: -1,000
Month 3: +2,000

No withdrawals from trader during this time.

For the first month Helios takes 20% ($400), leaving the trader with $1,600. No profit at the end of 2nd month. In third month, the traded is again up $2,000. Do you take another $400 from $2,000, or 20% from $400 (difference between $2,000 and 1,600 which was the trader's profit share from month 1)?

 

[Earn2Trade]

Sorry I'm still a little bit confused. Could you please help and explain on the below example?

Account balance:
Month 1: +2,000
Month 2: -1,000
Month 3: +2,000

No withdrawals from trader during this time.

For the first month Helios takes 20% ($400), leaving the trader with $1,600. No profit at the end of 2nd month. In third month, the traded is again up $2,000. Do you take another $400 from $2,000, or 20% from $400 (difference between $2,000 and 1,600 which was the trader's profit share from month 1)?

Please contact Helios Trading Partners directly here, info@heliostp.com. I'm sure they would be very glad to provide you with a precise breakdown.

 

[Earn2Trade-Alex]

Hello.

I am sorry for the confusion and any delay.
I will explain your example in detail.

Say you started today. You make $2000 profit as you say, to close out September. On Oct 1, Helios would take 20% of your current untouched profits, or $400. They would also mark the other $1600 as accounted for.

Then during October you have a down month and lose $1000. You are still up $600.

On November 1 they would take nothing, since you are up $600 and have "credit" for up to $1600.During November you make $2000 again.

Now on December 1 you are up $600+$2000 = $2600. $1600 of this is accounted for, and we would take 20% of the untouched $1000 ($2600 -1600). This would be $1000 of new profit, and Helios would take $200.

 

[StockTrader100k]

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?

Hello.

I am sorry for the confusion and any delay.
I will explain your example in detail.

Say you started today. You make $2000 profit as you say, to close out September. On Oct 1, Helios would take 20% of your current untouched profits, or $400. They would also mark the other $1600 as accounted for.

Then during October you have a down month and lose $1000. You are still up $600.

On November 1 they would take nothing, since you are up $600 and have "credit" for up to $1600.During November you make $2000 again.

Now on December 1 you are up $600+$2000 = $2600. $1600 of this is accounted for, and we would take 20% of the untouched $1000 ($2600 -1600). This would be $1000 of new profit, and Helios would take $200.

 

[traderjo]

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?

'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?

Million dollar question..

 

[LCK2000]

Good luck pulling your $3500 in profit and opening an account that lets you trade 15 contracts.

 

[StockTrader100k]

Good luck pulling your $3500 in profit and opening an account that lets you trade 15 contracts.

Good luck trading 15 contracts on only a $3,500 buffer in your account with the funding company
15 contracts on ES is $750 a point. $3500 is about what - 4.6 points. The ES currently moves that amount in about 10 seconds with current volatility this week and last week. So 1 wrong move and 10 seconds later the $3500 is gone on 15 contracts and then you’ll lose your funded acct and have to start over. In reality $3500 buffer is good for trading 1 or 2 ES emini contracts—not 15. And for Nasdaq traders the NQ emini is $20 a point so 15 contracts is $300 a point—- but the Nasdaq moves much faster than ES so you have the same problem—with 15 contracts you are way over leveraged with just $3500

and to be clear it’s not really even $3,500 as the trailing max drawdown is also calculated from you unrealized P&L high as well So if for example you were up $3,500 but thought your trade was going further in the money and instead it reversed and say you Closed out your trade with $2,500 in realized profits then your trailing max drawdown is still calculated from the unrealized higher amount of $3500 not the $2500

 

[StockTrader100k]

Once they pull the funding that is correct.

obviously you wouldn’t have the $3500 profit To withdraw without their initial funding

But after that (Meaning after you have generated profits equal to your trailing max drawdown) typically the drawdown is taken away (in reality that means their funding is pulled) and from that point on you are trading on your own funding and paying them 20%

which in reality makes no sense if they wanted long term success with the trader

what they should do is reward your consistently good trading with
converting your trailing max drawdown into a fixed drawdown and then for even better trading also offer a clear path to substantially increased funding if your trading is consistently good over a longer period of time

Instead they rug pull their funding on your 1st Initial bit of success of generating profits Equal to your trailing drawdown

does that sound like a long term win win scenario to you?

'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?

Million dollar question..

'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?

Million dollar question..