Prop Firm Hub | Page 420 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Featured US Prop Firms

Similar Threads

Anyone trading with a Prop firm 33 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

  • #8,381
  • Edited 5:32pm Jun 5, 2022 4:55pm | Edited 5:32pm
Quoting CableJ
I've been considering altering my strategy.. If passing challenges is not that difficult & time consuming for a trader.... Is it better to run live accounts at significantly higher risk @ let's say 2% per trade (commissions included) with 1-2 backup accounts waiting, plus stop trading for rest of month once 8% target is hit. vs. Merging the accounts and using way more responsible .5% risk per trade so I would never lose it when the eventual drawdown occurs. Crunching the numbers @ 2% risk, I can usually get a good 4-6 month run out of an account...
It is simple math. So you risk 2% on a 200k account per trade which is 4k instead of 0.5% on a 600k account, which is 3k per trade. So you have 33.3% more profits.

(You can only have 2*300k account at MFF as I know but I would assume you could also do some copy trading, second I do not know if there is a 60 day or 90 day inactivtiy rule, but then you only need to change the account from time to time where you do the 2% risk per trade.)

Then you only need to do more profits in absolute terms with the relative one third more profits for the value when doing a new 200k challenge with MFF, which is with the 5% discount code, a value of about $2742. So if you do more than $2742, which is the breakeven point, by risking 2% per trade and get 1/3 more in profits than doing only 0.5% risk per trade, then for you altering your strategy is profitable as you have more profits in total. It is just that easy you need to do in your calculation. To make it complete you need to in excess $2742 profits which is 1/3. So if you do $8226 profit per month by risking 0.5% per trade you need to do then in total $10968 by risking 2% per trade, which is the breakeven point. Whenever you are sure to do more than $11k on a 200k account per month ca., which you need to after your split. To say it in different terms, you need to more than 5.5% net or more than 6.88% before an 80% profit split, on a cycle, then you are fine with that. I have assumed you are doing profits in one month and then you blow up. If you can do profits for 4 months in a row before you blow up, then you just need to divide everything by 4, which you need to do per month. That's it. You only need to assure you are doing $2742 in excess with your 2% risk per trade in total.
When you say you do significant profits on a 200k accounts, then I would say, you should do that path. This is the more favorable and more profitable way then.
  • #8,382
  • Edited 6:10pm Jun 5, 2022 5:32pm | Edited 6:10pm
I don't believe MFF has an inactivity rule, but that would be easy to get around with micro lot trades.

Yes, the 600K would be utilizing a trade copier between the 2 300K accounts.
  • #8,383
  • Jun 5, 2022 5:43pm Jun 5, 2022 5:43pm
Quoting pipmaster77
To me, scaling is not scaling if you must keep it in your account
-Yes. However, I do think that there is a place for this kind of thing. The reason being, is two-fold:

1. I will assume that most traders lose their accounts due to daily draw-down violation, not max draw-down, since most traders seem to be inexperienced.
2. This allows traders to grow their daily draw-down allowance much faster, especially in cases where firms do not allow a permanent increase in daily draw-down.

So, in reality, it is not scaling, it is essentially enabling the trader to pad their account if they wish. This can be a good thing for traders that want to take on more risk. Depends on your strategy, I suppose.

Quoting CableJ
I've been considering altering my strategy... ...Is it better to run live accounts at significantly higher risk @ let's say 2% per trade (commissions included) with 1-2 backup accounts waiting, plus stop trading for rest of month once 8% target is hit. vs. Merging the accounts and using way more responsible .5% risk per trade so I would never lose it when the eventual drawdown occurs.
-I think doing both can be good. Have 'fun' accounts (with backups) that you trade higher risk, while also having multiple, stable accounts that you use for generating income.

Regarding merging, I do not think that that is necessary for stable earning:

3 x 100K accounts
$600 profit/day with trade copier is $12K profit/month AFTER taxes and profit split.

6 x 100K accounts
$300 profit/day (same as above)

Simply adjust the numbers to fit your risk-tolerance and goals.

I do think that traders should have at least one, separate backup account that they can trade on, regardless of their approach. If you do not want to use a trade copier, or be bothered with managing accounts like that, then having 2 or 3 larger, high-risk accounts that you trade separately could work, also. Even if you use a trade copier, separating your accounts out across the day can be helpful, too, where you trade the first (3) accounts first, then switch over to the other (3), just as a risk-mitigation effort. You lose out on profits, but it's safer.

The downside to trading high-risk accounts is having to take on more challenges in the event of account violations, which takes time and money. Of course, there are ways to off-set that too, by taking advantage of tax write-offs and using firms like E8 that only have a 1-day minimum trading requirement for challenges.

Ultimately, having multiple accounts where you trade smaller, can have you earning a good income for long-term. Whereas, having a few, high-risk accounts, can potentially have you earning yearly income each month. Obviously, the better your trading ability, the more flexibility that you have.

Finally, there is the hidden risk of raising flags (or creating problems) with firms that might not like seeing high earners on the regular.
  • #8,384
  • Jun 5, 2022 6:26pm Jun 5, 2022 6:26pm
The cost of challenges would mostly be putting the refunded fee back into the next challenge at no cost.

Potentially raising flags was a concern I forgot to mention under drawbacks. The firm should be making money before an account is blown, but that is not guaranteed and I would be taking advantage of them by blowing the drawdown and starting over on a new account without having to recover from the drawdown.
  • #8,385
  • Edited 7:24pm Jun 5, 2022 7:13pm | Edited 7:24pm
Yes, the refunded fee can be used as a tool, but it is not guaranteed, as you say. So, treating losses from challenge fees as a tax write-off (for those that can), is the best approach, I think.

I also think that the concern for high-risk trading may exist with all prop firms, not just those that are relying on challenge fees to support the model, simply because a firm that is actually looking for good, stable traders, will likely not be interested in high-risk traders.

And, since most firms have a clause somewhere stating that they can reject or terminate for pretty much any reason, then they will always have some way to weed you out and justify things, should you cause them some profitability problems. This is also why I would recommend having your 'fun' accounts with a different firm, if possible, separated from your stable earners. This just reinforces the importance of communities like this one, that can hopefully help to keep these firms honest and transparent.
  • #8,386
  • Jun 5, 2022 11:00pm Jun 5, 2022 11:00pm
Quoting CableJ
I've been considering altering my strategy.. If passing challenges is not that difficult & time consuming for a trader.... Is it better to run live accounts at significantly higher risk @ let's say 2% per trade (commissions included) with 1-2 backup accounts waiting, plus stop trading for rest of month once 8% target is hit. vs. Merging the accounts and using way more responsible .5% risk per trade so I would never lose it when the eventual drawdown occurs. Crunching the numbers @ 2% risk, I can usually get a good 4-6 month run out of an account...
Do not fool yourself into thinking that by applying 0.5% risk that the account cannot blow up.

I have seen a TE of a trader doing an FTMO challenge that applied 0.5% risk consistently and whilst he passed Phase 1 he failed Phase 2 due consecutive losing streak.

You have to have an edge plus risk control plus luck in the challenges.

Masterrmind ..........
Master your Mind then Master your Trades
  • #8,387
  • Edited 5:26am Jun 6, 2022 3:56am | Edited 5:26am
Found this randomly. If you want to test your chart reading skills this game is for you. Especially for those (pure) price action traders it is worthwhile maybe. I turned my 10k account to 50k in less than 100 rounds in just a few minutes. Let us know what you can do. The link for this free game: https://longshortgame.com/rounds/new
  • #8,388
  • Jun 6, 2022 5:05am Jun 6, 2022 5:05am
Quoting Nsak3y
Yes, the refunded fee can be used as a tool, but it is not guaranteed, as you say. So, treating losses from challenge fees as a tax write-off (for those that can), is the best approach, I think. I also think that the concern for high-risk trading may exist with all prop firms, not just those that are relying on challenge fees to support the model, simply because a firm that is actually looking for good, stable traders, will likely not be interested in high-risk traders. And, since most firms have a clause somewhere stating that they can reject or...
When you examine in detail the Prop Models commonly used it's clear that in general they want the majority of challenge taking traders to fail since this provides a constant revenue stream that partially supports their operations.

This is easily proved by simply considering the PT required from the allocated DD and the limited time to achieve unrealistic and unsustainable returns on equity.

Not uncommon to see figures of 65% to >100% return needed within only 30 calendar days.

When you compare these figures to the major hedge fund returns on a 30 calendar day basis you can see how wild these Prop Firms are in regards to the returns required to pass their challenges.

This is one reason why considering a Prop Firm that offers a much greater time to complete the challenge is actually worth looking at in more detail.

One of the posts above mentioned a few Props with extended periods of time and some of them are actually 'unlimited'.

Ofcourse, some of these firms may require traders to trade within a lower DD requirement, control max open lots and use much lower leverage yet they may be worth a more detailed assessment.

Masterrmind ............
Master your Mind then Master your Trades
  • #8,389
  • Jun 6, 2022 5:53am Jun 6, 2022 5:53am
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} Excellent. This is exactly what I meant in my post earlier this week. If anyone considering prop firm visits this thread, they should ALWAYS get good value for their money, NEVER be scammed and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be fooled by direct funding. As one can clearly see, ALL DIRECT FUNDING has a score of under 1. In addition to the chart, the FIRST HAND experiences of trading conditions and firms that pay SHOULD lead a trader to the 3-4, maybe 5 firms to use.

Hello pipmaster. You are making the hardest work simpler by creating this thread. Most of the information is provided here. However i wish to know if there are any firms that does not have a fixed target in the eval level. Im very profitable trader but i make very less percentage every month . I target anywhere between 3 to 5% every month.I always keep my exposure very less.

So the real problem is reaching the target of 8 or 10% by most. Im looking for a firm which has NO to max of 3% target. Kindly advice .
Avoid what is Strong,Strike at what is Weak
  • #8,390
  • Jun 6, 2022 6:03am Jun 6, 2022 6:03am
Quoting Masterrmind
When you examine in detail the Prop Models commonly used it's clear that in general they want the majority of challenge taking traders to fail since this provides a constant revenue stream that partially supports their operations.
-Absolutely. But two considerations may need to be made:

  1. The high profit-target, although very reckless and extreme, allows traders to get funded much faster.
    ...
  2. Although most firms start out this way, they typically do not need to rely so heavily on challenge fees to support the model as time goes on. MFF publicly admitted this. Maybe FTMO, also, but I cannot remember.


I guess my point is that some firms may eventually transition into a more legitimate operation once they are able to do so. Some may even truly hope to start out this way, but were afraid to offer anything other than 'the norm' for fear that it wouldn't work. Whether or not these types of firms will need (or want) to drop the challenge model later on is another matter entirely.

MFF spoke about eventually suspending new sign-ups from time-to-time, as if they have a maximum number in mind already. Nonetheless, the high-risk model seems like a fair trade-off by giving traders access to funding quickly, while also supporting the early stages of the business.

I personally prefer being able to get funded faster. But, I am a scalper. I know that it is not everyone's preference.

I do not prefer trading with a lot of rules and restrictions, either. So, I suppose that the higher risk is one hoop that I am willing to jump through in order to trade risk-free with someone else's money, especially when it is mostly on my own terms.

I do like that there are other options, though. Having more options is usually always a good thing. I think that the cookie-cutter offerings, while good in their own way, could still be better. I think that there is still a lot of room for improvements, but I am not complaining; always on the lookout for better offerings, but not complaining.

  • #8,391
  • Jun 6, 2022 6:06am Jun 6, 2022 6:06am
Quoting magentfx
So the real problem is reaching the target of 8 or 10% by most. Im looking for a firm which has NO to max of 3% target. Kindly advice .
-5%er's Freestyle program.
  • #8,392
  • Jun 6, 2022 7:02am Jun 6, 2022 7:02am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-5%er's Freestyle program.
Hmm not fully convinced to be honest. It all feels a bit cynical to me, I had a close look at it but in the end I doub't I will curve fit into their metrics to make it work for me. It definitely doesn't feel like" Freestyle" at all...

Also I would be very interested if anyone has actually been paid from this and received a fee refund?
  • #8,393
  • Jun 6, 2022 7:07am Jun 6, 2022 7:07am
Quoting magentfx
{quote} Hello pipmaster. You are making the hardest work simpler by creating this thread. Most of the information is provided here. However i wish to know if there are any firms that does not have a fixed target in the eval level. Im very profitable trader but i make very less percentage every month . I target anywhere between 3 to 5% every month.I always keep my exposure very less. So the real problem is reaching the target of 8 or 10% by most. Im looking for a firm which has NO to max of 3% target. Kindly advice .
Credit doesn't belong to me. Mastermind is the creator of this thread. As far as your question, if you earn 3-5% PER MONTH, what is your DD? Easy answer if it's under 5% is to simply double your risk% per trade to pass phase1. Phase 2 should be a breeze and then of course there are no targets once funded.
As far as firms with no target and/or time limit,as has been discussed numerous times here, only lead to the direct funding models which are of no value to a trader as you get less than what you pay for. So first step would be to look at the recent sheets posted by TrAndy. Look for the ones with a value score of 3+ and pick the closest one to fit your numbers.
If you earn, 3-5% per month, MFF would be your best best as they give a 30 day extension for "non gambling" type traders. So 8% in 60 days, which sounds doable for you.
  • #8,394
  • Jun 6, 2022 10:27am Jun 6, 2022 10:27am
Quoting CableJ
I've been considering altering my strategy.. If passing challenges is not that difficult & time consuming for a trader.... Is it better to run live accounts at significantly higher risk @ let's say 2% per trade (commissions included) with 1-2 backup accounts waiting, plus stop trading for rest of month once 8% target is hit. vs. Merging the accounts and using way more responsible .5% risk per trade so I would never lose it when the eventual drawdown occurs. Crunching the numbers @ 2% risk, I can usually get a good 4-6 month run out of an account...
I completely understand your point. Only suggestion I make is to split this strategy through several companies to keep a low profile.
One thing is to blow a funded 200K, once a year. It's almost unnoticed. Another thing is 4x50K accounts in a year and maybe 6 to 8 challenges passed. Specially if you take profits before blowing up, which is your objective.
Companies don't like this so if your objective is to risk blowing 4x50K accounts instead of 1x200K it's better to spread this in several props IMO.

Edit: I hadn't read the remaining posts. I see that you made this remark also.
  • #8,395
  • Jun 6, 2022 10:53am Jun 6, 2022 10:53am
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} I completely understand your point. Only suggestion I make is to split this strategy through several companies to keep a low profile. One thing is to blow a funded 200K, once a year. It's almost unnoticed. Another thing is 4x50K accounts in a year and maybe 6 to 8 challenges passed. Specially if you take profits before blowing up, which is your objective. Companies don't like this so if your objective is to risk blowing 4x50K accounts instead of 1x200K it's better to spread this in several props IMO. Edit: I hadn't read the remaining posts....
Again it depends on how broker (prop firm) is hedging their bets. I believe unless you cross 10-20% they act like STP taking reverse position afterwards they may take same positions like trader as risk increases.
if thats the case Prop firms would love blown up accounts. And statistically it supports as 90% of accounts go away in 3 months.
  • #8,396
  • Jun 6, 2022 3:11pm Jun 6, 2022 3:11pm
Quoting Fagin
Hmm not fully convinced to be honest. It all feels a bit cynical to me, I had a close look at it but in the end I doub't I will curve fit into their metrics to make it work for me. It definitely doesn't feel like" Freestyle" at all...
-I fully agree.

Personally, after spending some time on demo trying to see if I would like it, I decided that the model was too restrictive for my tastes. If they loosened it up a bit, I might reconsider.

However, my comment was in reference to someone looking for a 'no-profit-target' option, and this is one of the few models that I know of that is not a direct-funding-type.
  • #8,397
  • Jun 7, 2022 12:06am Jun 7, 2022 12:06am
is https://elitetraderfunding.com/ legit?
  • #8,398
  • Jun 7, 2022 1:47am Jun 7, 2022 1:47am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-I fully agree. Personally, after spending some time on demo trying to see if I would like it, I decided that the model was too restrictive for my tastes. If they loosened it up a bit, I might reconsider. However, my comment was in reference to someone looking for a 'no-profit-target' option, and this is one of the few models that I know of that is not a direct-funding-type.
Hopefully they will come up with something that is more of a win/win to trader and them.

I keep giving the the benefit of the doubt (probably because they have good branding and marketing, though..) although they don't seem to be able to offer a package that is fair and simple, I do wonder if they really want traders on the book or just the trader's fee...
  • #8,399
  • Edited 2:21am Jun 7, 2022 2:09am | Edited 2:21am
Quoting KoyaAndy18
is https://elitetraderfunding.com/ legit?
Worst firm I've ever seen.

Two big no-nos for prop firms: 1) relative drawdown; 2) monthly fee

This firm has both. To make it worse, the relative drawdown is based on your highest unrealized profit, not based on balance.

Besides, the ratio of profit target to max DD is ridiculously high, almost 3. For 300K Evaluation, it may take over one year to reach profit target of 20,000 with max relative DD of 7,500, so you pay 655*12=7860. Not to mention that if you happen to forget to close all trades 1 minute before market close each day, just once, you fail your evaluation (or live account).
Attached Image(s) (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: 2638292.JPG Size: 20 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: 67899876.JPG Size: 58 KB
  • #8,400
  • Jun 7, 2022 2:59am Jun 7, 2022 2:59am
Quoting KoyaAndy18
is https://elitetraderfunding.com/ legit?
No, their 300k offer its score is below 1, that means you pay more than what you get. It would be better to do your own compounding. Even their best offer is below its score of FTMO. So it would be better to choose FTMO or other prop firms of my selective ranking list. They also only offer Futures, you get all their CFDs+FX at FTMO.
162 traders viewing now