Menu
Sister Sites

Options

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Print Thread

Similar Threads

Macro & Market Developments, Discussion & Analysis 37 replies

ECN && STP && Scalping && Hedging - Broker Review - Oct 2009 24 replies

XTrade - Trade Journal & FX discussion 8 replies

Risk Reward +Probability [Poll & discussion] 2 replies

S&P 500 Analysis and Discussion Thread 3 replies

Attachments: My Forex Funds - Discussion/Q&A
Exit Attachments

My Forex Funds - Discussion/Q&A

Quoting Razvan.I
Also, positive equity, not negative. Why should I not be paid on positive equity and miss out on profit ? What difference does it make if I have negative equity also ? It always evens out between pay cycles.
-No professional firm is going to allow this. Respectfully, you are delusional if you expect that it should work this way.
Quoting Razvan.I
{quote} Oh my god, just omfg, nothing else. And to think I even laid out the calculations and there are traders that cannot sum it up, LOL . Also, positive equity, not negative. Why should I not be paid on positive equity and miss out on profit ? What difference does it make if I have negative equity also ? It always evens out between pay cycles. Moreover, ever read the rules ? This is hilarious, how you came up with the broke consistency rule ? Tell us, please
It's right up there in the excel image. The minimum of the average for the first week amounted to 2.5 trades... You took 2 trades on the first day and 1 on the second.
The violates the consistency rule.
Stupid rule i know, but that's the rule you agreed to.

Either ways, why are you going on and on about it for nothing? they clearly told you that it was not the reason for your delayed payment, so forget about that issue for now.
The main problem now is the closing of trades before requesting for pay outs. Every firm i've worked with has this rule.... it only makes sense that one would be flat before requesting a pay out from TOTAL PROFITS REALIZED.

However, you are very right to reference the announcement from their discord channel where they said it only applied to the Accelerated accounts (even though i believe it's a general rule that applies to all account types on the actual site)

So, just follow up with them. They'll come through.
Wouldn't be trying to swindle you for just $200+.
Quoting Koop
{quote} It's right up there in the excel image. The minimum of the average for the first week amounted to 2.5 trades... You took 2 trades on the first day and 1 on the second. The violates the consistency rule. Stupid rule i know, but that's the rule you agreed to. Either ways, why are you going on and on about it for nothing? they clearly told you that it was not the reason for your delayed payment, so forget about that issue for now. The main problem now is the closing of trades before requesting for pay outs. Every firm i've worked with has this...
Hi Koop,

Thank you for your reply. Indeed I am not implying they are swindling me for 200 bucks.

The rule about closing or not the positions on rapid and live accounts as well should really be clearly stated, as it make a ton of difference for a medium-long term trader like me and others as well, so the better laid out the rules, the better.

Also, again, you misunderstood the CEA rule, please read the rule, than calculate the excel or my uploaded log, I am within those parameters, 100%.

The CEA states, average of trades, average of lots, from a week to another, not a day to another.

Although I know the payout is not about this, it's not ok to start like this, I am sure along the road when maybe I will indeed break something and ask for clemency, as there is a precedent will be judge differently so correct is if I break something to be indeed, legitimately and not let it like that.

Thanks.
Living the way my older self would have wished for my younger self. RazvanI
hello all.excited to be in ff also to share my experience as a Forex
trader
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote} -No professional firm is going to allow this. Respectfully, you are delusional if you expect that it should work this way.
With all consideration, than you never worked for one and have no clue how the desk traders or open outcry traders are paid. Always someone trying to be the wiseguy in the room.
Living the way my older self would have wished for my younger self. RazvanI
Quoting Razvan.I
With all consideration, than you never worked for one and have no clue how the desk traders or open outcry traders are paid. Always someone trying to be the wiseguy in the room.
-Honestly not trying to be a wiseguy, but what you are asking is unreasonable. If a prop firm allowed traders to make withdrawals based on their open positions, then they could potentially take on massive amounts of risk. No professional prop firm should be willing to do that; their investors would drop them in a heartbeat. Also, remember that we are talking about remote prop firms here.
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote} -Honestly not trying to be a wiseguy, but what you are asking is unreasonable. If a prop firm allowed traders to make withdrawals based on their open positions, then they could potentially take on massive amounts of risk. No professional prop firm should be willing to do that; their investors would drop them in a heartbeat. Also, remember that we are talking about remote prop firms here.
To some extent it makes sense, but just in the context you described. In the trading/investor business, the most profitable ones are those who build massive positions in time and are paid monthly based on closed balance. Imagine how bad it is for business for both investor and trader to close positions that run well into profit, just to get paid. Also, the firms offset the risk by paying the trader balance as long as equity, if in minus, is no more than a certain percent, i.e. 5 or 10%. Also, if equity positive, the balance is paid without any reserve, as the current equity is higher than balance.

Guess most of you do not know this. In true prop industry, positions are opened almost always on traders accounts ! They have special employees just for calculating risk scenarios in relation to upcoming events and manage portofolio, the top traders have "assistants" .

Your welcome
Living the way my older self would have wished for my younger self. RazvanI
Quoting Razvan.I
{quote} To some extent it makes sense, but just in the context you described. In the trading/investor business, the most profitable ones are those who build massive positions in time and are paid monthly based on closed balance. Imagine how bad it is for business for both investor and trader to close positions that run well into profit, just to get paid. Also, the firms offset the risk by paying the trader balance as long as equity, if in minus, is no more than a certain percent, i.e. 5 or 10%. Also, if equity positive, the balance is paid without...
NCA option the best for Rapid Account
Quoting Razvan.I
Guess most of you do not know this. In true prop industry, positions are opened almost always on traders accounts ! They have special employees just for calculating risk scenarios in relation to upcoming events and manage portofolio, the top traders have "assistants" . Your welcome
-Now who is being the wiseguy? Remember, we are talking about remote, non-traditional prop firms here.
Quoting Razvan.I
{quote} Hi Koop, Thank you for your reply. Indeed I am not implying they are swindling me for 200 bucks. The rule about closing or not the positions on rapid and live accounts as well should really be clearly stated, as it make a ton of difference for a medium-long term trader like me and others as well, so the better laid out the rules, the better. Also, again, you misunderstood the CEA rule, please read the rule, than calculate the excel or my uploaded log, I am within those parameters, 100%. The CEA states, average of trades, average of lots,...
You missed the first part.
I once attempted the program in the past and i too was very confused initially.
They did a terrible job explaining this consistency thing... but trust me.. it's 10 times better than how funding talent presented theirs in the past.

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: ram.png Size: 111 KB
  • Post #151
  • Quote
  • Edited at 1:48pm Sep 22, 2021 1:35pm | Edited at 1:48pm
Koop, man, seriously, what's the point in doing what I already did ?

Isn't it easier to assume I know what I am talking about and go thru my already posted calculations to find out that I calculated the average of each, for both weeks, and I am in the above mention standard deviation of 2.0 ? It's so easy to see I did not broke anything ! Damn.

Also, after reading what you wrote (my appreciation for the effort) it really doesn't translate into the deviation applied on a daily basis as well, that would be crazyyy !

No one can ask such a thing, if so the case, than the design itself is there to force you to trade when there is nothing to trade. The markets are not the same each day, everyone knows that.

As it's written, the CEA 2.0 factor applies from current week to next one. It is bananas to apply this daily and moreover to formulate like that. If it was the case, I would have never in my life bought such an account, me and a dozen others.
Living the way my older self would have wished for my younger self. RazvanI
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote} -Now who is being the wiseguy? Remember, we are talking about remote, non-traditional prop firms here.
You have a point...I am tired and run out of patience with so many people jumping in to reply without even going thru what I wrote, just replying blindly.

Living the way my older self would have wished for my younger self. RazvanI
Quoting Razvan.I
{quote} To some extent it makes sense, but just in the context you described. In the trading/investor business, the most profitable ones are those who build massive positions in time and are paid monthly based on closed balance. Imagine how bad it is for business for both investor and trader to close positions that run well into profit, just to get paid. Also, the firms offset the risk by paying the trader balance as long as equity, if in minus, is no more than a certain percent, i.e. 5 or 10%. Also, if equity positive, the balance is paid without...

Yeh man.. pro prop firms are great... I have worked in one, and no one who has ever entered a pro prop firm would have thought it was a smart idea to buy a rapid CEA account without knowing what the rules are. Also no employee of a pro prop firm would ask for a payout when they are in negative equity...
The jig is up, you came here to try to get $200 from them... But you had two unreasonable requests, one to ignore you breaking the rules and two for them to ignore your floating equity. I guess it makes sense why you chose the demo account option.
Quoting Razvan.I
I am tired and run out of patience with so many people jumping in to reply without even going thru what I wrote, just replying blindly.
-I can understand that. Unfortunately, though, if you elect to make your issues a matter of public in lieu of keeping things private, then you are bound to get all kinds of responses, even annoying ones like mine. I will say that MFF is considered to be a credible firm by most, so you are likely to raise a lot of eyebrows, regardless.
Quoting Razvan.I
Koop, man, seriously, what's the point in doing what I already did ? Isn't it easier to assume I know what I am talking about and go thru my already posted calculations to find out that I calculated the average of each, for both weeks, and I am in the above mention standard deviation of 2.0 ? It's so easy to see I did not broke anything ! Damn.
Lol Man, stop being hard headed and read what i just posted again so you can understand.
You are totally missing the point of my last post.

Quote
the CEA states, average of trades, average of lots, from a week to another, not a day to another.

This is partly wrong....

You are still talking about Week to week and i am telling you that asides the week to week averages..... There is also a daily average requirement for the first week.
I just wasted my time explaining it with that picture.

Forget about the part you highlighted and look above.... The first paragraph in the picture is solely focused on the first week.
Quoting Takisd
{quote} Yeh man.. pro prop firms are great... I have worked in one, and no one who has ever entered a pro prop firm would have thought it was a smart idea to buy a rapid CEA account without knowing what the rules are. Also no employee of a pro prop firm would ask for a payout when they are in negative equity... The jig is up, you came here to try to get $200 from them... But you had two unreasonable requests, one to ignore you breaking the rules and two for them to ignore your floating equity. I guess it makes sense why you chose the demo account...
Takisd, you clearly have no room here, you just cannot comprehend what we are talking about. Do yourself a favor and stop replying just to waste my time when you clearly cannot follow thru a simple thread with all details explained in a "verbally" and mathematical manner. You seem to post just for the "I was right" purpose.

You know very little about many things, judging by how you write and draw conclusions. It is best for you to just, not type. Keep it together for yourself. Your conclusions are out of this world and are based solely on your perceptions and self validation, you are the subjective want attention type. I will not go further into detail.

I am here to solve some things that are not correct, as a smart being you supposedly should be, you should be objective, observant and bring value. You just bring...nothing.
Living the way my older self would have wished for my younger self. RazvanI
Quoting Razvan.I
Koop, man, seriously, what's the point in doing what I already did ? Isn't it easier to assume I know what I am talking about and go thru my already posted calculations to find out that I calculated the average of each, for both weeks, and I am in the above mention standard deviation of 2.0 ? It's so easy to see I did not broke anything ! Damn. Also, after reading what you wrote (my appreciation for the effort) it really doesn't translate into the deviation applied on a daily basis as well, that would be crazyyy ! No one can ask such a thing, if...
LoL i just saw your edit

WHat you said would be crazy? Yeah.... that's the reality of the rapid.
it also considers daily trades and lot sizes.
You have to force trades to make sure you stay within the limit for that particular week.
  • Post #158
  • Quote
  • Edited at 5:13pm Sep 22, 2021 2:06pm | Edited at 5:13pm
Quoting Koop
{quote} Lol Man, stop being hard headed and read what i just posted again so you can understand. You are totally missing the point of my last post. {quote} This is partly wrong.... You are still talking about Week to week and i am telling you that asides the week to week averages..... There is also a daily average requirement for the first week. I just wasted my time explaining it with that picture. Forget about the part you highlighted and look above.... The first paragraph in the picture is solely focused on the first week.
I read that rule a plethora of times, I not once draw your conclusions nor can now, as each sentence is formulated by MFF.

Also, if there is a daily average requirement for the first week like you stated, it has nothing to do with it, as I am on the 4th week. This rule was also mentioned and explained in some youtube podcast exactly as is written on MFF site and exactly how I am yelling here.

How can one even ask to keep each day in the 2.0 deviation of the average of last week ?!

I am off, won't reply further, we will see how it is when MFF staff will reply.

I thank you anyway for you effort man and all the others that contributed positively and objectively.
Living the way my older self would have wished for my younger self. RazvanI
Oh, finally some quiet ...
Evidently , Razvan is suffering from verbal diarrhea.
We hope he keeps his promise as above post " I am off, won't reply further ".
Moreover , I don't understand why Razvan is still a normal member , he should be a Commercial member, since he has a Financial Service in Bucharest.

https://www.facebook.com/ForexTradingHakunaMatata
https://www.linkedin.com/in/razvan-ionescu-843342b9/

I'll report to Twee.
Quoting Matteorossi
Oh, finally some quiet ... Evidently , Razvan is suffering from verbal diarrhea. We hope he keeps his promise as above post " I am off, won't reply further ". Moreover , I don't understand why Razvan is still a normal member , he should be a Commercial member, since he has a Financial Service in Bucharest. https://www.facebook.com/ForexTradingHakunaMatata https://www.linkedin.com/in/razvan-ionescu-843342b9/ I'll report to Twee.
My dear little man, did I managed to offend you in any way ? Do you suffer from "last word syndrome" or "I want attention and be right" ?

You replied to a topic that has nothing to do with you, moreover you are a toxic brain dead person as I see that brings nothing except flaming.

You have your frustrations I am sure, but keep it together and for yourself. As me and the other members managed to have open and politely discussions, each brought something to the table. What did you bring ? You are like a little girl "Ooo, I'll report to Twee" and you are so mentally challenged that you fail to see that, well guess what, I always been in the Commercial Section, wow !

Attached Image

Even the fact you have clicked my profile and interested in me just so you can have something more to reply, proves you have issues. Forums such as this are meant for people to solve problems, bring value and real life reviews, so to speak, people that reach a mentally and emotionally stability, not for little ass kids that can get their head out of their asses.

A word of advice, leave it as it is and move on, trust me, it's better for you because if not, you will really make a name for yourself here
Living the way my older self would have wished for my younger self. RazvanI
1 trader viewing now