As I spoke about in my prior posts, I already confirmed that 1) your initial managed account with OneUp after the passed evaluation phase remains in a simulated trading environment and 2) that OneUp reserves the right in their contract to switch your managed account between live and demo at their discretion but still compensates the trader regardless if the results were obtained in the live or demo account. I can now confirm that after requesting a payout, I received a wire transfer the very same day for the amount requested. In fact, the entire process took less than an hour. I want to reiterate for emphasis that my results were obtained in a simulated trading environment [as evidenced by the fact that liquidity didn't show up in the order book] but that I was still compensated fairly as per my contractual agreement. So far, my experience with OneUp has been remarkable in virtually every aspect. That said, I still have no idea [nor have I inquired, so don't view this as sketchy as I honestly have not asked] on when my account will be converted to live, if ever. I would imagine that if the trader is consistently withdrawing money from demo, and OneUp is obviously losing significant amounts from this, that they would simply switch you to live as you've undeniably proven yourself. Moving forward, I will update this thread on my continued experiences, but as of now, I could not be happier. We'll see if and how this changes as I earn more money [tens of thousands, for example] in order to see the true longevity and legitimacy of OneUp. I say this because since I'm an early adopter of the platform, I could still be paid currently even if it were an illegitimate enterprise. So far, it does appear legitimate, however.
I read your post with interest. The first piece of bold text is what concerns me going back into their funded accounts. I didn't enjoy the eyes on me late last year at all and the annoying phone calls. By the way, I know EXACTLY who that 'arrogant prick' is!!!! A bit confused as to why you think the rules make it more difficult? They have personally made things much easier for me.
That's overwhelmingly the consensus of opinion elsewhere, too. The changes were apparently aimed at increasing Combine pass-rates and certainly seem to have had that effect. Good to see you posting here again, James.
Good to see you(literally!) too Xela! More than the Combine, it's the FTP adjustment that's a life-saver for me. No more must-be-positive-after-10-days nonsense means I can actually use the draw down I paid for. That and the indefinite duration of FTP, previously 60 days tops, makes this less like gambling and more like actual trading. I do agree though with some of the other comments re: size of draw down and it's relation to per trade risk (even a 6 tick stop on CL is 4.4% risk/trade) and not being able to carry trades from one session to another does stop you from taking part in some great moves...but I intend to fix the first issue by simply building a bigger cushion than the initial DD offered.
Yes - indeed. It looks much more similar to actual live trading now, as well as increasing the proportion of applicants successfully being funded. Makes sense, of course. Looking forward to good news from you.
I was basing it off the FTP profit target and drawdowns. Maybe my memory is a bit foggy but in the past, at least with the $50k combine, you only needed to earn about $1k in the FTP program as your profit target to succeed whereas now it's $3k. That moves the ideal profit objective from $100/day on average for 10 days to $300/day on average for 10 days. That's a 200% increase in the required profit objective -- that's enormous! As an aside, I fully agree that the 10-day rule to have an account balance above zero was completely unreasonable and bogus. Anyways, I also believe that in the past the daily and weekly loss limits for that account were 1.5-2k whereas now they're both 1k. So, how FTP is more difficult now than it was in the past is that you now need to earn substantially "more money" while reducing your risk "even more" substantially. Those parameters are not really realistic nor if someone trades like that will they ever make a decent income -- you'll realistically never make hundreds of thousands or millions trading like that, only hundreds. Where this becomes almost completely unachievable is that the max "weekly" drawdown is $1k, as in you can't lose $1k consecutively or else you can't trade for the entire week. I can't tell you how many times a week I have an unrealized loss of $1k using 3 contracts. That's only ~33 ticks. Oil whipsaws 33 ticks probably at least a dozen times a week. If you're using physical stops and stopping out every 33 ticks you're almost certainly never making money trading. Not to mention how many times I'm red on Monday/Tuesday [a weekly bull or bear trap] just to make it all back and more on Wednesday/Thursday/Friday; with TsT's arbitrary weekly loss limit, if you do poorly on Monday you might not be able to trade for the next 4 business days and miss out completely on potential moves you otherwise would have won on. With OneUp, in contrast, you'll note that there is no arbitrary FTP component nor is there an arbitrary weekly loss limit, only a daily loss limit. You'll furthermore note that hitting the drawdowns with TsT is an automatic account closure whereas with OneUp your positions are simply closed and that you're allowed to survive to trade another day.
Sure, but that's consistent with their target market, I think? Their service is targeted at people with trading skills but without capital to trade their own accounts. Making "hundreds" must be a pretty good deal, to those people? They can't do it on their own, after all, because they can't trade at all without backing? This is surely TST's market? There's a reason they publish their blog in Russian as well as English, too? Their lists of successfully funded traders certainly seems to include plenty of people from Ukraine, etc.? I trade CL a bit, but it's only my "distant second choice" of instrument. (I suspect NQ is far more suitable for TST trading than CL?) Or that their answer to your observation above, which I don't doubt at all of course, would maybe be "trade 1 contract, not 3"? I think it's maybe a little odd to be comparing TST with OneUp in some ways: TST have been established for many years, funded many hundreds of traders and paid out very reliably, after all. OneUp, I think I'm right in saying, is a brand new business that hasn't yet paid out a single funded trader, and doesn't even fund people themselves, anyway?
Aye, there's the rub. If you had $150,000 of your own capital in your account, and lost $1k on Monday, would you stop trading for the rest of the week, even though the opportunities presented themselves? I didn't think so.
Their service is not targeted at the people with trading skills but without the capital contribution to trade their own accounts. Their service is targeted at the demographic of people who 'think' they possess adequate trading skills [based on feelings like arrogance and narcissism, no proven track record or statistical market advantage, at all] but don't have the sufficient capital contribution to trade their own accounts. These people are, on average, the reckless risk-loving people who will keep chasing a dream by dumping monthly recurring subscription payments into TsT's hamster wheel infrastructure without actually learning absolutely anything because TsT's parameters do not encourage nor support learning how to trade 'for real'. More likely than not, this demographic is probably less educated [not possessing bachelors/masters/PHDs], has more debt/insolvency [credit card payments to TsT], and less income. This is analogous to gambling and not true portfolio risk management. That's a big distinction because their service doesn't truly scout for good traders, rather they're chiefly concerned with maximizing combine fee revenue while reducing funded trader risk as much as possible. If this weren't the case, TsT would post statistics on combine/FTP applicant success rate, trader longevity and retention, median trader earnings, etc., and would also have more favorable risk parameters. There would be less marketing and advertising of mediocrity and their environment would contain a vibrant community of traders posting their successes more frequently/mentoring others. Nor am I saying that, by the way, that OneUp is the answer; rather, they're only slightly better and have implemented only a few more favorable rules over TsT. What are some of these rules that I'm talking about? Well, to start, refunding the evaluation fee if you passed should be an industry standard if your objective truly is to scout for the best traders [neither TsT nor OneUp does this]. Next, a trader should not be paying the monthly data fees [OneUp doesn't charge the trader monthly data fees but TsT does]. Next, there should not be daily loss limits, weekly loss limits, drawdowns, etc. -- you should be given, according to a selected account size, an amount of buying power, a profit objective, a time objective, and a drawdown that is NOT trailing. The trader should either pass or fail within these parameters [neither OneUp or TsT does this purely, but OneUp does it better]. As you continue to show promise, your funded account increases in size and as you do poorly your funded account is reduced in size. In addition, you should be able to trade all reports if desired and hold overnight to allow for swing trading; specifically, you should be able to hold positions until the 5pm eastern close instead of the current ~4:15pm limit [neither OneUp nor TsT does this, though OneUp does allow for report trading during the evaluation]. That's just some of the rule changes that would turn this business model from "farm evaluation fees" to "discover real trading talent". Moving onto your other comments, sure, in impoverished and limited areas around the world in which the cost of living is significantly lower, then earning a few hundred in the united states denomination is acceptable. Sure, some people even in top producing nations [GDP] like USA, find it acceptable to earn a few hundred a week. However, for 'real' trading, this is an embarrassment; 'real' trading should be earning 20 ticks/day on average minimum with a position size in CL of at least 5. If you have any real talent at all you should be trading at least 10-20 CL. This should be $1k/day or about $250k/year minimum and if you have any real talent you should be earning far more than this. If you're not, it suggests you've hit a personal ceiling, and you need to continue improving. Also, yes, the person can trade 1 instead of 3 but it gets back to my first point -- making a few hundred a week with 1 contract as a CL trader is very limiting, mediocre, and is quite frankly pathetic to anyone who is a 'real' trader. P.S. I am a funded trader with MES Capital [OneUp's funding partner] and I have been paid. Yes, OneUp is new. No, MES Capital is not new. Yes, they could still be illegitimate. As of now, however, my experiences have shown otherwise. In my opinion, in the 'funding traders' market/industry in which only OneUp and TsT exists, I find OneUp better for the consumer.
Can somebody answer this please? Hello? ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-THOUSAND DOLLARS in your trading account. Lose $1k, and your career is over? OMFG.