Justin's Playground

Will go up without testing major MAs? Probably not....

A hidden gem of the indicators I found recently.... I don't find much talk about this indicator on FF for some reason. As it's based on volume data, it may work better with futures rather than forex.


Ease of Movement (EOM)

https://www.tradingview.com/support/...-movement-eom/





By the way, I have decided to focus on the 30 sec chart based gold scalping as a hobby and I won't spend time more than 5 hours per day (usually Asian and late U.S. sessions) with daily profit target of only $500. Main trading income still should come from natural gas calendar spread trading which yields very good opposites recently. I tried Steve's 5M swing trade for months but unfortunately I found it's not for me. It still requires a very good understanding of structures which Steve has developed for many years. I don't think I can reach that level quickly. I will come back with more story once I receive the first payout from the prop firms. Wish me luck.

Natural Gas is very interesting recently...... and giving me a decent spread trading opportunity.




https://www.fxempire.com/forecasts/a...d-5-00-1574066

Regarding the Youtube live trading influencers such as Patrick Wieland, Alpine Trader, Nutty Bar Trader, ..etc., why do they spend so much money in purchasing propfirm accounts?


Short answer: it’s not (just) because they “need” that many accounts to trade — it’s a mix of capital efficiency, payout mechanics, marketing, and risk engineering.
Let’s break it down cleanly, no influencer fluff.
1. Prop firms = extremely cheap “synthetic capital”
Buying prop accounts is basically renting buying power.
Example (typical numbers):

1. $50k account costs ~$150–300
2. Max loss maybe $2–3k
3. Payout split 80–90%

From a trader’s POV:

1. Risking $300 to control $50,000
2. If blown → loss is capped at the fee
3. If profitable → withdraw real cash

For someone who can trade, this is absurdly capital-efficient compared to trading their own money.
2. Scaling without emotional damage
Most live traders:

1. Are scalpers or short-term traders (like you)
2. Make relatively small per-trade edges

Instead of:
“Let me size up one big personal account”
They do:
“Run the same strategy across 10–50 small prop accounts”
Benefits:

1. Same risk per trade
2. Same psychology
3. Same execution
4. Linear scaling

10 × $50k accounts = $500k notional exposure
…without risking $500k of their own money.
3. Drawdown rules reward account stacking
Prop firm rules often:

1. Penalize deep drawdowns
2. But allow parallel accounts

So instead of one $250k account:

1. They buy 5 × $50k accounts
2. Blow 1–2? Fine.
3. Survivors still pay out.

This is portfolio theory applied to accounts, not trades.
4. Marketing & credibility (this part matters a lot)
Let’s be honest.
When a YouTuber says:
“I’m trading 20 funded accounts today”
That:

1. Signals “I’m consistently profitable”
2. Attracts affiliate sign-ups
3. Drives referral income
4. Justifies course/Discord pricing

In many cases:
The referral commissions are larger and steadier than trading PnL.
So buying accounts is:

1. A business expense
2. Content fuel
3. Proof-of-concept marketing

Some influencers are closer to media operators than traders.
5. Payout smoothing & income regularity
One personal account = volatile income.
Many prop accounts:

1. Different payout cycles
2. Different firms
3. Different rule sets

This:

1. Smooths cash flow
2. Reduces “one bad week = no income”
3. Looks better on YouTube (“weekly payouts”)

It’s income engineering, not just trading.
6. Why not just trade personal capital then?
Good question — and revealing.
Reasons many don’t:

1. Psychological pressure is higher with own money
2. Risk is uncapped with personal funds
3. Prop firms externalize tail risk
4. Marketing value of “funded trader” label
5. Tax / accounting simplicity in some regions

Also:
If they really had $1–5M of personal capital,
they probably wouldn’t be livestreaming trades for YouTube clicks.
7. The uncomfortable truth
Here’s the part influencers rarely say out loud:
Many are only marginally profitable as traders,
but very profitable as prop-firm affiliates + content creators.
Buying many accounts:

1. Increases the chance some hit payouts
2. Creates highlight content
3. Sustains the funnel

That doesn’t mean all of them are fake — but it does mean trading skill alone is not the whole business model.
Bottom line
They buy tons of prop accounts because it:

1. Maximizes capital efficiency
2. Limits downside
3. Scales cleanly
4. Smooths income
5. Boosts marketing credibility
6. Feeds affiliate revenue

It’s a business decision, not just a trading one.
If you want, I can also:

1. Break down which influencers likely rely more on trading vs referrals
2. Explain why prop firms tolerate this behavior
3. Compare this model vs trading your own capital as a scalper (very relevant to you)

Just say the word.



Explain why prop firms tolerate this behavior


Great question — this goes straight to the actual economics of prop firms, not the story they tell traders.
Prop firms don’t tolerate influencer behavior by accident.
They designed the system so this behavior is profitable for them.
Let’s peel it back.
1. Prop firms are fee businesses, not trading firms
This is the core misunderstanding.
Despite the name, most retail prop firms:

1. Do not primarily make money from trader profits
2. Do not warehouse risk like real proprietary desks

They make money from:

1. Evaluation fees
2. Reset fees
3. Monthly subscriptions
4. Account churn

As long as:
Fees in > payouts out
…the model works.
Influencers buying 10–100 accounts are perfect customers.
2. Math is on the prop firm’s side (by design)
Key facts prop firms know (and measure obsessively):

1. 90–95% of accounts fail before payout
2. Even funded accounts often fail before second payout
3. Traders overtrade under drawdown rules

So when an influencer buys 50 accounts:

1. Statistically, most will fail
2. Fees are collected immediately
3. Only a small subset ever reach payout

This is casino math, not trust.
3. Drawdown rules are anti-scaling by intention
Trailing drawdowns, daily loss limits, consistency rules:

1. Penalize volatility
2. Penalize scaling too fast
3. Penalize normal variance

These rules:

1. Increase failure probability
2. Especially for aggressive scalpers

Influencers stacking accounts don’t break the model —
they validate it.
Many accounts die → more fees.
4. Payout friction protects the firm
Even when traders do win:

1. Payout caps
2. Payout delays
3. Minimum trading days
4. Consistency rules
5. “Violation” interpretations

This:

1. Slows cash outflow
2. Increases odds the account fails post-payout
3. Reduces lifetime value of each funded trader

So firms are happy to:
Pay $5k–10k occasionally
to collect hundreds of thousands in fees
5. Influencers are unpaid sales staff
This is huge.
Influencers:

1. Market the firm for free
2. Normalize repeated account purchases
3. Make failure look “part of the process”
4. Push referral links nonstop

From the firm’s perspective:
“Why spend on ads when traders will sell for us?”
Even if an influencer is net profitable:

1. Their audience is usually not
2. Net inflow remains positive

6. Risk is externalized to liquidity providers
Most retail prop firms:

1. Simulate accounts (B-book style)
2. Copy only a small subset of trades to real markets
3. Or hedge selectively

So:

1. A winning influencer doesn’t automatically hurt them
2. They can throttle, copy, or internalize risk

This lets them:

1. Allow “successful” traders
2. Without exposing the firm to catastrophic loss

7. Multiple accounts actually reduce firm risk
Counterintuitive, but true.
One trader with one huge account:

1. Large payout risk
2. Reputation risk if dispute happens

Same trader with 20 small accounts:

1. Fees collected upfront
2. Failures distributed
3. Payouts staggered
4. Easier to control exposure

From a risk perspective:
Many small accounts > one big one
8. Why they don’t ban it
Banning multi-account behavior would:

1. Reduce fee volume
2. Kill influencer marketing
3. Expose how few traders succeed

Also:

1. Influencers carefully stay within ToS
2. Firms quietly whitelist high-volume customers

The relationship is symbiotic:

1. Influencer needs capital illusion
2. Firm needs volume and legitimacy

9. The uncomfortable equilibrium
Here’s the reality:

1. Prop firms need some winners → credibility
2. Influencers provide visible winners
3. Majority of traders fund the payouts
4. Everyone publicly claims skill is the key

It’s a carefully balanced ecosystem, not fraud, but not traditional prop trading either.
Bottom line
Prop firms tolerate — and encourage — influencers buying many accounts because:

1. Fees dominate payouts
2. Failure rates are high
3. Rules amplify churn
4. Influencers are marketing machines
5. Risk is controllable
6. The math always favors the firm

They’re not afraid of skilled traders.
They’re afraid of too many skilled traders who don’t churn.
If you want, next we can dig into:

1. How to tell which prop firms are most predatory
2. Which rules statistically kill scalpers fastest (very relevant to you)
3. Whether using prop firms actually makes sense for your trading style

Just say where you want to go next.

About 20 years ago when Jim Rogers was talking about $5000/ounce gold, people thought it was a joking..... It has printed $5K in this Asian open.

I blew up the daytraders.com eval account weeks ago gambling in picking the swing top and low. Now I have restarted with new Apex and Take Profit Trading accounts. I will use them only for scalping this time. I want to pass the eval within a month to reduce the cost. I also started to use Tradesyncer to copy tradings. Both Motivewave's and Quantower's trade copier is flawed. Too bad... Actually, trade copy is not very effective to scalpers like me. Especially, limit orders are the source of troubles. Worthy noting. Anyway, my max loss is limited to the fees I pay for. No stress.

When I use Tradersyncer to copy trades with limit orders, do I come across some problems?


Short answer: yes—limit orders work, but they’re where most trade-copier headaches show up. Not deal-breakers, just things you need to understand so you don’t get surprised.
Here’s what typically goes wrong with Tradersyncer + limit orders
Partial fills (most common issue)

1. Master account gets filled, but a follower gets partial or no fill
2. Happens because:
   1. Price moved a tick
   2. Liquidity wasn’t there for all accounts

3. Result: position size mismatch across accounts

This is unavoidable with limits in fast markets (/NQ, news spikes, opens).
Price mismatch due to latency

1. Even tiny latency means:
   1. Master places limit at X
   2. Follower receives it milliseconds later
   3. Price already traded through → order just sits

2. Worse during:
   1. 1-minute scalping
   2. Breakouts
   3. High-volatility sessions

Tick size & symbol differences
If accounts are not 100% identical, limit orders can fail or get rejected:

1. Different tick size rules
2. Slightly different contracts (micro vs full)
3. Different sessions or exchange routing

Market orders don’t care—limit orders do.
Queue priority problem
Your master account:

1. Is first in the order book

Follower accounts:

1. Are behind everyone else

So even if the price touches your limit:

1. Master fills
2. Followers don’t

This is normal exchange behavior, not a Tradersyncer bug.
OCO / bracket timing quirks
With limits:

1. Entry fills at different times per account
2. Brackets (SL/TP) may activate out of sync
3. Can cause:
   1. Early stop on one account
   2. Missed TP on another

Especially noticeable when scaling in/out.
Prop firm rule risk
If one account fills and another doesn’t:

1. You might unintentionally:
   1. Exceed max contracts
   2. Violate consistency rules
   3. Leave “ghost exposure” on some accounts

This matters a lot with prop firms.
Best practices (what pros actually do)
For copy trading + scalping:
Use market orders for entries
Use limit orders for exits only
Trade during high liquidity periods
Keep all accounts identical (broker, data feed, contract type)
If you insist on limit entries:

1. Accept that some accounts will miss trades
2. Reduce account count
3. Avoid breakout chasing

Bottom line
Limit orders aren’t “broken” in Tradersyncer—but for multi-account fast trading, they’re structurally unreliable.
If you want, tell me:

1. Asset (/NQ, /GC, etc.)
2. Order style (breakout vs pullback)
3. Number of accounts

I can suggest the least painful setup for your style.


Got it — /GC
That actually helps, because gold behaves much better with limit orders than /NQ… but there are still a few traps when you’re copying trades.
Here’s the GC-specific reality with Tradersyncer + limit orders:
What’s GOOD about GC for limit-copying
Deeper book than equities during most sessions
Slower price velocity (less “blink and you miss it”)
Cleaner pullbacks → limits make sense
Tick size is fixed (0.1 = $10), fewer weird rejections
For a 1-minute GC scalper like you, this is one of the best markets to even attempt limit-copy trading.
GC-specific problems you’ll still see
Limit touch ≠ fill (queue issue still exists)
Even on GC:

1. Master fills
2. Follower sits unfilled
3. Price trades one tick and leaves

Especially common:

1. At round numbers (e.g., 2000.0, 2050.0)
2. During COMEX pit open
3. Around US data releases

Partial fills during volatility spikes
Gold loves to:

1. Sit still → then explode 5–10 ticks instantly
2. Limits get partially filled on some accounts

Result:

1. Account A: 1 contract
2. Account B: 0 contracts
3. Account C: 2 contracts

That’s how copy trading turns messy fast.
Bracket desync hurts more on GC
GC moves “chunky”:

1. Stops and targets are often tight in ticks
2. If entry fills at slightly different prices:
   1. One account stops
   2. Another survives
   3. Another hits TP

You end up managing three different trades instead of one.
How pros trade GC with Tradersyncer (this works)
Best setup for GC
Entries:
Market orders (yes, even on GC)
Exits:
Limit TP + Stop market SL
Why:

1. GC slippage on market entries is usually 1 tick max
2. That’s cheaper than:
   1. Missed trades
   2. Rule violations
   3. Manual cleanup stress

If you insist on limit entries (safe version)
If your edge is pullback-based, do this:
Place limits 1–2 ticks inside, not at extremes
Avoid:

1. News
2. Pit open (08:20–08:40 ET)
   Reduce copier speed lag if possible
   Trade fewer accounts simultaneously

Accept upfront: some trades will not copy cleanly
GC-specific golden rules

1. Never use limit entries for breakouts
2. Never use limit entries during momentum ignition
3. Market in → limit out = highest consistency
4. Always monitor for unfilled follower accounts

Bottom line (GC version)
For /GC + Tradersyncer:

1. Limit orders are usable, unlike /NQ
2. But market entries are still superior for copying
3. The cost of 1 tick slippage is nothing compared to copier chaos

If you want, tell me:

1. Number of accounts
2. Contracts per account
3. Scalping vs pullback

I’ll dial in a GC-optimized copier workflow for you.

I am holding these NG spread positions now. Nat Gas summer & winter calendar spread trading is a low risk cash cow.....

(This journal was manually imported from Rithmic Trader R Pro as Tradersynce doesn't support auto-sync to Rithmic yet.)

What kind of music you hear while you trade?

Another good source of Natural Gas daily analysis for somewhat professional level:


https://www.youtube.com/@ElKTradingCoLLC

https://www.fxempire.com/forecasts/a...t-week-1576012

This will help widen the summer spread which I am currently betting to.

Gold April contract (GCJ6) is totally non-tradeable in this Asian session. DOM is total mess with 20 -30 ticks of jumping spreads..... What a crap.

No trade today due to very high spread and volatility. Hope gold comes back to normal next week. Closed the week with a decent performance. Too bad they are EVAL accounts.... Stats are somewhat exaggerated by the way because each account under the copy trading is counted as an independent trade.
Anyway, I think I have figured out how to scalp...... Let me see if it can continue.

I had two small trades in this early Asian session. One loss and one win. Still very choppy with high volatility and wide spread. Had to trade MGC (micro gold) as a result. I was tempted to trade NQ (Nasdaq) instead of Gold but decided to stick to familiar gold. Let me see if I can find a better opportunity later today.....

Price action wasn't much 'neat' and I made more losses. Managed to make small green though at the end. Perhaps no more trade today. Not very good day to trade without momentum.
By the way, I passed the eval of one of the Apex accounts.

A day when only stop huntings can yield a temporary momentum.... this is the day you should step away. Today's gold market is an example. No strategy works in such a day. I had to step away....

Clawed back a bit... I wasn't available in this Asian session due to personal affair by the way. Late U.S. session trades.

February start is not very good. Apex suspended gold trade due to its super high volatility and I am trading NQ instead since last week. Take Profit Trader eval account is also gone last week....



Personally, I think trading NQ is more tricky compared to GC. Especially, U.S. session is almost impossible to trade. Just full of noise and not human tradeable. Now I am trading only during early Asian session or late U.S. session.