What are your thoughts on the new 2% rule recently implemented by Topstep Trader on funded accounts?

I keep 100% of the first $5000 made, then I redraw and go open my own broker account. Win win scenario

So using as a training tool like Demo but using them to keep you honest and really first 5K your out and fund your own account.

Is the no 5K deposit with TST??

I've got just over 5K in the account, wouldn't really give me more buying power as that's linked more to daily Max drawdown anyway.

Grinding for years, do okay for ages, then over confidence bites my ass, simplifying again, think I've reached the point where I can't get simpler :)
 
So using as a training tool like Demo but using them to keep you honest and really first 5K your out and fund your own account.

Is the no 5K deposit with TST??
Yes sirrrrrr, you nailed it Turveyd. Exactly my plan. It makes no sense for me to risk my capital. TST starts me off with $2000, then I get busy. It is good program

there is no deposits. After reaching the funded stage, the monthly $160 goes away.
 
Perhaps Im wrong about my interpretation of this rule but nevertheless this is how I understand it

lets take the example from their website below - lets say the session starts at 2814 and you initiate a short position - bad news comes about about covid-19 or china and the market starts a steep and quick selloff - according to this you would have to take profits before 2730 hits or you are in violation and would lose your funded account even though you have a highly profitable trade. My point is if you have a profitable position it seems bad to me that you have to cap your profit and get out before 2730 when in reality it could trade down another 50 points (or more) on the bad news - 5% down is 2673 and 7% down is 2617.

  • Example 1: The Settlement Price for the ESM0 contract on 5/13/2020 was 2814.00. If you are trading when the Price Limit is 5% up and down you can make the following calculation to identify the levels that are within 2% of a Price Limit that you should stop trading at:
    • Level Above to Stop Trading: 2814*(1 + 5% - 2%) = 2,898
    • Level Below to Stop Trading: 2814*(1 - 5% + 2%) = 2,730
How Do I Ensure I Do Not Violate Trading Within 2% of a Price Limit?
One of the easiest ways to ensure you are not trading within 2% of any Price Limit would be to watch the % Net Change for the contract you are participating in via your trading platform quote board.

  • Example 1: Assume you are trading the ESM0 contract between 5:00 PM CT on 5/13/2020 and 8:30 AM CT on 5/14/2020, the price limit is 5% up or down. You should not be trading ESM0 if the % Net Change on the day exceeds 3% up or down (5% Price Limit minus the 2% Topstep threshold).
  • Example 2: Assume you are trading the ESM0 at 9:00 AM CT on 5/14/2020, the price limit is now 7% (down only). You should not be trading ESM0 if the % Net Change on the day exceeds 5% (7% Price Limit minus the 2% Topstep threshold) down.
Another method to find your limits would be to calculate them based on the Settlement Price. You would need to know the previous day’s Settlement Price along with the % up and/or down that triggers the next Price Limit based on the time you are trading.

  • Example 1: The Settlement Price for the ESM0 contract on 5/13/2020 was 2814.00. If you are trading when the Price Limit is 5% up and down you can make the following calculation to identify the levels that are within 2% of a Price Limit that you should stop trading at:
    • Level Above to Stop Trading: 2814*(1 + 5% - 2%) = 2,898
    • Level Below to Stop Trading: 2814*(1 - 5% + 2%) = 2,730
  • Example 2: Again, the settlement price for ESM0 on 5/13/2020 was 2814.00. If you are trading when the Price Limit is 7% down, you can make the following calculation to identify the levels that are 2% within a Price Limit that you should stop trading at.
    • Level Above to Stop Trading: n/a
    • Level Below to Stop Trading: 2814*(1 - 7% + 2%) = 2673

Probably to make it easier to understand traders who have an edge vs those who are lucky and caught a big trend. The latter will show pnl similar to a guy who grinds it out everyday.
 
So you don't have to go along with a dog and pony show to keep 80%.

Trade MES and define your own risk rules. Or get involved with a more exclusive prop. Your choice. One should ask what TST has to gain from charging $160/mo for a "trial" rather than just making the trader's capital at first loss.

Really makes you think...

The obvious non-political answer even their own people might respond to this post with is "many traders do not have the capital to trade their own accounts even levered by a prop with their money at first loss". Which begs the question again... what does TST have to gain from charging $160/mo?

It's a brilliant business model. My hats off to them. Wish I thought of it. I could be raking in the dough $160/mo for pikers to play in my sim :). Maybe even fund a few good ones with the losses from the rest.

EDIT:

So it doesn't sound like I'm just saying this to stir up shit with a sponsor I had difficulty finding the number of "attempts" per month that failed and never returned. Call it "training trader turnover". What I do know from the home page 365 traders (assuming this is audited?) have made it in 2020. Lets just give a conservative 100x to that number. 36500 traders have attempted. So this nets around 5.8 million dollars. My thesis is that they are using failed trader dollars to fund other "successful" traders - creating a sort of trader-arbitrage prop that delivers more-or-less risk free return to them as some multiple on net earnings.

Absolutely brilliant.
You will be shot down with following counter arguments
-You are failed trader hence your re criticizing this business model (LOL)
- These companies are bringing trading to the masses so is that not a noble business ethic!
- Why do you need to know how many test were soled and how many were really funded
and to top it off every sucker will say Look I am getting funded for $150K where are on earth am I going to get that sort of money ( First of all these suckers don;t even know that that 150K is not real 150K real money it is a leveraged notional amount ...any body can day trade 1 ES with $500 gives you $150,000 position !)
The better and more ethical model is
1) NO (Paid) Tests, no contribution , "Get selected on your talent " type Prop
2) First loss funding
 
The "trading challenge/combine" firms do offer value in my opinion and they can make you a better trader as there is "financial hurt" if you dont adhere to strict risk management as you will fail and have to pay a reset fee as well as possibly another monthly fee and in most cases that is still significantly less than had you traded the same contracts in your own live account and is certainly better than trading a demo account like TD Ameritrade's ThinkOrSwim where you certainly can practice on a demo account but there is no "financial hurt" if you fail and thus are you really learning anything that will apply in live trading if there is no downside risk at all. At least with the trading combines there partial downside risk which makes them more realistic and educational than just trading a straight demo account with no cost and no financial ramifications for failure.

Now that being said....... another question is -- are these companies really set up to help the trader achieve long term success or are their risk parameters and scaling plans really set up to induce failure and thus the trader has to start over and over

Most of the prop forms such as Topstep, Earn2Trade, OneUp and others have very flawed models as far as "scaling up" when you look at the overall picture of scaling plan increases max lot size but keeps risk parameters the same.

(One exception to this is FTMO - they will increase your account size which in turn allows you to trade more contracts but they also increase your max daily loss and max loss the same percentage as they increase your account SEE https://ftmo.com/en/scaling-plan/ ---unlike all the other firms--as explained below)

The problem in my opinion with most of the trading combine/challenge firms 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 3X up to 5X your original max size of 3 (or 4) 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 un-enlarged 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
 
Last edited:
...

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

They would have less failures, which means less refunding by the prospects, which means less revenue. They do not want to fund traders. Too much paperwork. Making money off of sim traders is way easier and WAY more profitable. Smartest business model in the traderverse, because people keep falling for it over and over and over and over again.
 
Back
Top