TST Combine results and strategies for passing | Trading Reviews and Vendors


futures.io - futures trading strategies, market news, trading charts and platforms


Trading Reviews and Vendors


Discuss and review vendors of commercial trading products, trading rooms and services, trading indicators or third-party paid add-ons




 

TST Combine results and strategies for passing

  #24 (permalink)

Trading for Profit
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: TradeStation
Favorite Futures: ES
 
Pedro40's Avatar
 
Posts: 565 since Jan 2013
Thanks: 33 given, 369 received


Cloudy View Post
It seems the requirements of TST are for weeding out most so only the best traders can pass it.

I disagree. It looks like the rules are for making traders to alter their style and eventually to fail. Let's say, you are the backer. What is more important to you:

a/ The trader can make the profit target.
b/ The trader can fit to the parameters.

Obviously any common sense backer would choose a)

And mind you, some of the parameters are completely irrelevant BS. Trading duration winner vs. loser? Who cares about that? Even the win% is irrelevant because I can have 5 small losers and 1 huge winner and be nicely profitable.

So let's say you need to make 2K in 20 days and you actually made 3K profit, but you didn't pass the parameters. Why would any normal backer NOT back you because of that? And it seems they are really not having that many traders to be backed, so it makes no sense to make rules so strict. Now if they had a dozen traders hitting the profit target every week, sure, try to filter them out a little, but so far too many good traders hasn't been their problem.

And as a comparison, another similar firm I mentioned earlier has very few rules: make X profit in Y days using Z contracts without a bigger the K draw down. It is really that simple...


Last edited by Pedro40; January 18th, 2013 at 12:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to Pedro40 for this post:
 
Page generated 2018-11-17 in 0.07 seconds with 11 queries on phoenix