Menu
Sister Sites

Options

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Print Thread

Similar Threads

Anyone trading with a Prop firm 6 replies

So I accepted a Prop Trading job in South Beach Miami 44 replies

prop firm new model - my trading journey 871 replies

Attachments: Prop Firm Hub
Exit Attachments

Prop Firm Hub

Quoting TrAndy1
It is not the same. A broker that is b-booking is not the same like prop because on the broker you can withdraw anytime your profits and for sure you can always get your "payout". On props there is a serious risk of not getting your payout or funded account or whatsoever. You cannot put them both in the same pot. The risk is huge differently here. If I was 100% to get everytime a payout and can keep my funded accounts until infinity on a prop then this would be the same like on a broker. But it is not the case. So as a result there is huge difference....
Ok that's a good point. I do agree on that. But as I said earlier, if we are ONLY taking about worrying the effect of having the house playing against you, I don't think there's much difference between two. The same thing happens with major brokers too. You would never know if they A-book you or B-book you.

If we dip deeper into that, worrying about having b-booked by a prop firm or a broker, would affect your winning rate, the only scenario I can think of, is if you have a very large trading account. So large, that they are willing to move the entire market for you. I don't think it's a concern for most people here.

But I would say this, I believe stop loss hunt exists. And by that, I mean those random spikes. But they aren't done for just a few people. They are done for people who use a tight stop loss.

If we are talking about other aspects, then yes, I agree there are several key differences between props and a normal broker account. You are right on the part that withdrawal can only be made on prop if a profit is made, and if the prop firm is actually reliable and legit.

But with good firms like ftmo, your chance of getting your refund after passing the challenge (and making a tiny profit and not touching it for 2 weeks) is very high, after that, it's a free ride. You don't lose anything if you lose money on that account. It's free capital, provided if you have passed the challenge and got the full refund.

So to me, if a trader is profitable consistently, and the prop firm is good and reliable, got massive capital to honour payouts, I would still go to the prop firm, while trading my own account simultaneously.
memento mori
Quoting TrAndy1
I do not know exactly why but when a prop is doing b-booking only it is all from fees, and there is extra capital you get. On a broker there is no extra capital your deposit is 100% fully paid upfront. So maybe that is the reason why b-booking on a broker is much easier to do.!
Just wanna add one more thing, in the CFTC document, MFF did A book a handful of people. I think it's around 100 people. These are the people who have a solid winning record, that MFF was willing to A book them. It also shows some other truths. That most people who got the funded account, either didn't have a steady winning record (not steady enough to make MFF think it's worth it to A book them to offset the big payout risk...I mean like total lifetime payout in the long run), or these people chose to yolo their funded accounts, and wanted to get rich overnight.

And this is the reason why I believe prop firms think it's more profitable for them to not A book most people. MFF and FTMO got an insane amount of data for them to come to this conclusion. The asset value MFF holds is around 300M (maybe I got the exact number wrong...but it's more or less the same). This gives us a peek view in how many customers they got. That amount of data is enough to show whether A booking or B booking is more profitable for them in the long run.
memento mori
Quoting Tovip
{quote} Just wanna add one more thing, in the CFTC document, MFF did A book a handful of people. I think it's around 100 people. These are the people who have a solid winning record, that MFF was willing to A book them. It also shows some other truths. That most people who got the funded account, either didn't have a steady winning record (not steady enough to make MFF think it's worth it to A book them to offset the big payout risk...I mean like total lifetime payout in the long run), or these people chose to yolo their funded accounts, and wanted...
there was many trading games out there, that tried make copy trading of the successful traders inside. anyone failed, not one consistent successful trader existed in this. so a prop would be crazy to copy inside themself the traders, they will tell sometimes (maybe some crazy or unexperienced CEO do) but that they do is total big risk from them and only because this are unexperienced CEO without knowing this was done so often and failed miserable Always!

problem with A book in prop is: you bring a trade in real market and get real risk by this, what was before only demo account risk. so now a real trade is open with real wins and losses to compensate a fake trade in demo. so you dont earn what a A book broker get (the commission or spread differences or price differences between A booked price and client price ), you just be in risk now with the trade, a A book broker close the risk with this trade.
Quoting Trader191
problem with A book in prop is: you bring a trade in real market and get real risk by this, what was before only demo account risk. so now a real trade is open with real wins and losses to compensate a fake trade in demo. so you dont earn what a A book broker get (the commission or spread differences or price differences between A booked price and client price ), you just be in risk now with the trade, a A book broker close the risk with this trade.
When MFF A-booked a trader was, indeed, eliminating the risk. From that moment on the risk of MFF was limited to the allowed DD x 80% (if the trader busted the account). Any payout, big or little, would come from the profits from A-booking.
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} When MFF A-booked a trader was, indeed, eliminating the risk. From that moment on the risk of MFF was limited to the allowed DD x 80% (if the trader busted the account). Any payout, big or little, would come from the profits from A-booking.
Anyone on a-book became more likely to lose because of market condition decay. Real market conditions aren't these magic spreads people love to bitch about or the tiny slippage people complain about. Real market conditions is rough, and the "im a scalper" types are first to get ripped to shreds by it.

A book as a prop is acceptance that your only choice is to lock in a max loss (overall dd) and hope the opposite happens.

If brokers offered real market conditions, they would get so many complaints and thus retail exists where only b book exists. There are b book risk mitigation strategies, but without customer deposits they are not valid and so props have a choice, make completely new trades with the data, b book everything or run hybrid understanding any a book trader will lose in the long term.

A book would be more possible if the profit split was less than 60% to the trader. But its not, instead we have 90%. Once the payout split hit 90% everyone should have immediately known that the math doesnt work for the model unless its b book.
  •  Soros
  • Joined Sep 2012 | Status: Edge,Phsycology And Money Managemen | 951 Posts
just purchased $100k 5ers high stake.. will give feedback when im done
I am what Many Dream to be but only a few can achieve, im a part of the 1%
I have been receiving emails from this company, not sure how or why, but the emails were not getting flagged as spam and were arriving in my inbox, so I decided to try to unsubscribe. Check out how they try to hide the unsubscribe link. Also, when I try to click the link, it gets blocked by uBlock Origin and doesn't even load the page.

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: 2023-10-21_3-26-01.png Size: 14 KB
Quoting Takisd
But its not, instead we have 90%. Once the payout split hit 90% everyone should have immediately known that the math doesnt work for the model unless its b book.
Agree. That 40% would allow some margin for the house to accommodate (for the prop) the worse market conditions that the trader will face.

And, yes, A-book is not for the prop to make money. Is to put a limit on how much they will lose with that trader.

Something i would like to know is what happened in MFF if I was, somehow, A-Booked, busted my account and then returned and won another account. I guess mmy past history would be irrelevant in my second account.
Quoting Soros
just purchased $100k 5ers high stake.. will give feedback when im done
Good luck mate. Just pay attention to the news rule +/- 2 minutes and the 3 days >0.5% profit.

For the news rule it's absolutely forbidden to open positions in that period. For the closing with a TP/SL it's not written but appears to be a consensus that if you have a position running for several hours / days and then the SL / TP is hit on those +/-2 min this won't be a violation.
  •  Soros
  • Joined Sep 2012 | Status: Edge,Phsycology And Money Managemen | 951 Posts
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} Good luck mate. Just pay attention to the news rule +/- 2 minutes and the 3 days >0.5% profit. For the news rule it's absolutely forbidden to open positions in that period. For the closing with a TP/SL it's not written but appears to be a consensus that if you have a position running for several hours / days and then the SL / TP is hit on those +/-2 min this won't be a violation.
what rule is the ''3 days >0.5% profit'' rule?
I am what Many Dream to be but only a few can achieve, im a part of the 1%
Quoting Soros
just purchased $100k 5ers high stake.. will give feedback when im done
I purchased $250k bootcamp. Good luck.
Quoting Soros
{quote} what rule is the ''3 days >0.5% profit'' rule?
about news rule. 2 minutes rule
I have submitted ticket to 5ers regarding withdraw since last week, requested via wise but Wise don’t provide US bank details to new accounts. 5ers support is extremely slow but I guess it is what it is
Quoting Soros
{quote} what rule is the ''3 days >0.5% profit'' rule?
Quote
Minimum Profitable Days: 3

A profitable day is a day on which the closed positions made a positive profit* of at least 0.5% of the initial balance.
*The positive profit is calculated as follows: Minimum(Midnight Balance, Midnight Equity) - Previous Day Balance


You need to make 3 days with at least 0.5% to pass. It's not difficult, unless you use to pass it with a few treades with huge profits
In the dashboard you have an indicator that counts this so don't worry in counting.
Ahh, and there is a 14 days inactivity rule. There's also a counter in the dashboard.

Quote
Accounts without trading activity for more than 14 calendar days will get expired. The counter starts from registration day.
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} Agree. That 40% would allow some margin for the house to accommodate (for the prop) the worse market conditions that the trader will face. And, yes, A-book is not for the prop to make money. Is to put a limit on how much they will lose with that trader. Something i would like to know is what happened in MFF if I was, somehow, A-Booked, busted my account and then returned and won another account. I guess mmy past history would be irrelevant in my second account.
A book is an off ramp for risk. It is not a "i am going to get rich from this". Imagine, you are dealing with retail traders and if you A book anyone you are basically hoping an begging that they maintain a psychological discipline. If they fail on A book, most likely they didn't and most likely the condition decay was the trigger for that.
A-book is not risky like some people think.
If you ever use collective2 there are lot of people use a strategy that copy trading traders with good trading records.
The strategy is if you see a trader with good past performance then you may think when you copy him he may not perform like before. Well, if you choose the best 20 traders, and assign 5% capital for each of them, then some of them may go wrong, but the outcome of total 20 traders will be positive.
This strategy has been used by C2ers for many years and been proved successful.
Quoting Takisd
{quote} A book is an off ramp for risk. It is not a "i am going to get rich from this". Imagine, you are dealing with retail traders and if you A book anyone you are basically hoping an begging that they maintain a psychological discipline. If they fail on A book, most likely they didn't and most likely the condition decay was the trigger for that.
A-booking was an MFF stop loss for certain traders.

So, if he had a 200K account the loss was locked at 90% x 20K. MFF would lose 18K, give or take, when the trader will bust. Not more than that.
On the other side MFF would avoid any risk of being liable for a 50K payout or such because if that happened MFF would had the money for it.

Knowing that A-booking was increasing the chances of busting, it's easy to see why MFF was picking so few traders for it. I guess this was to be very well deliberated, weighting the pros and cons.
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} A-booking was an MFF stop loss for certain traders. So, if he had a 200K account the loss was locked at 90% x 20K. MFF would lose 18K, give or take, when the trader will bust. Not more than that. On the other side MFF would avoid any risk of being liable for a 50K payout or such because if that happened MFF would had the money for it. Knowing that A-booking was increasing the chances of busting, it's easy to see why MFF was picking so few traders for it. I guess this was to be very well deliberated, weighting the pros and cons.
This is not just mff, this is everyone in prop.

The problem with running an a-book as a prop, and some people seem to forget, is that there are no investors or deposits. Its far harder to get any reward out of the orders if there are no deposits than it is if there are deposits. And the risk is far greater.

But I am tired of talking about it to be honest because it always triggers the people who think that there are far more successful retail traders than there actually are. Per 100, there is likely 1 person who will make money trading. That 1 person is counted as making money only if they withdraw more than they deposit. The other people in the 5% are the ones who break even, go up and down but dont lose technically as they are still there. Statistically if you b book you will be fine. The other problem is with prop that most companies have better than market conditions (although that seems to be changing). So even if you a-book the decay in performance is dramatic (as per the MFF complaint and real life), most retail traders who are profitable are only profitable as the conditions are fake. Spreads are lower than they should be, and slippage less than it should be.
Quoting Takisd
{quote} This is not just mff, this is everyone in prop.
I'm not convinced that most of them even a-book the very risky traders, like MFF did. They probably kick them out with denied payouts and bans for fabricated reasons.
In that sense MFF was more "honest". If they sensed a too big risk they would simply A book and locked a SL on that trader.

For the rest you said I agree about the loser % but when we deposit 10K in a broker that's 10K from our pocket, while in 100K challenges (with 10K DD) we may be able to pay a fraction of those 10K if a challenge cost 500 USD and we don't bust 20x.
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} I'm not convinced that most of them even a-book the very risky traders, like MFF did. They probably kick them out with denied payouts and bans for fabricated reasons. In that sense MFF was more "honest". If they sensed a too big risk they would simply A book and locked a SL on that trader. For the rest you said I agree about the loser % but when we deposit 10K in a broker that's 10K from our pocket, while in 100K challenges (with 10K DD) we may be able to pay a fraction of those 10K if a challenge cost 500 USD and we don't bust 20x.
Exactly.
29 traders viewing now, 2 are members:
xhat
,
montygoldy