This looks not too bad. Unlimited time and only 1 phase evaluation with target 10%. Only drawback is limit targets are lower than standard evaluations.
{quote} What do you mean exactly by " arb 2 legs " ?
Ignored
Could be something like this: https://www.forexfactory.com/thread/...rokers?page=10 but I'm not a specialist on arb. It's just that talking about group hedging doesn't really make any sense to me. Maybe someone else has more knowledge about what they mean. I really don't see how you could make money by hedging within a broker and what's the big deal in two traders closing trades at the same price as trades get closed all the time at the same price and time, hundreds of them every second probably if you have a large number of traders connected to your server.
In most cases, this is just a typical pyramid scam and as long as you get more new failing clients to pay for the profitable clients things will work. The 80-90% payout level is also totally ridiculous but good of course for those who sit on top of the pyramid just under the top dog.
I am reading since few weeks here and on telegram groups posts about this hedging / cheating problems prop firms vs traders. I been trading since 2007. There was binary options boom, then crypto, now prop firms become popular. Approach which prop firms choosed is wrong, because with that high amount of trades they got in the book every day they can refuse payment to everyone. It is easy to find opposite trade to any trade because this is how the market works, someone is selling so on the other side someone is buying. Also it is wrong argument giving example of opposite trade without knowing who is on opposite side. They can themselves open fake account hedge profitable traders by ea and then show proof that there was opposite trade. The only way I believe can work to solve group/cheating problem they should restrict using eas vps and all that stuff to have exact device and trader network to minimize menaging multiple accounts from one place.
But I see conflict which might appear in future prop firms vs brokers / regulators.
I suggest every trader to know how to diversify profits and invest outside prop firms, because it not going to be that sweet all the time. History shows that every new investing model must go thru it own bear market, some companies will not survive and than the strongest one and smartest will lead industry.
New traders who do not trade with forex stock futures regular brokers are doing huge damage to mental psychology side of trading. Getting used to expecting huge lots huge amounts on account and huge returns it is not good long term. There might be days trader need to start with smaller capital and start from scratch. It can happen also after huge returns being overconfident and then loose most of profits. If there are profitable traders here they know this path. I thought losing is the problem but after a while I realize that even bigger problem is huge wins and what happen after that.
So I suggest diversify profits, go with part of funds with regular broker, trade whatever way you like there and build some capital there as well.
I am reading since few weeks here and on telegram groups posts about this hedging / cheating problems prop firms vs traders. It is easy to find opposite trade to any trade because this is how the market works, someone is selling so on the other side someone is buying. Also it is wrong argument giving example of opposite trade without knowing who is on opposite side. They can themselves open fake account hedge profitable traders by ea and then show proof that there was opposite trade.
Ignored
Exactly. The surefire way to banish profitable traders. Wrong problem. The real and only danger for a prop is not hedging but rather the opposite: i.e. if a massive number of users all bet in the same time and the same direction and win the trade.
{quote} Exactly. The surefire way to banish profitable traders. Wrong problem. The real and only danger for a prop is not hedging but rather the opposite: i.e. if a massive number of users all bet in the same time and the same direction and win the trade.
Ignored
Not so much if they pass the funded account trades to markets with 30-50% revshare. The problem is that very few traders can be constantly profitable but if the prop firm has a good scaling program, it will lower their risk.
In my view prop firms are victims of there own approach. First they attract with sky is the limit trading and after they cannot handle it. They say that pattern is like that : trader goes with reasonable trades thru challenges. Then on live account he takes x time more risk. And his friend from group trade with such big risk opposite him. One is losing account and second is winning big and they share after. It is true is pain for prop firm but I believe the only way to do it properly is more individual approach to every trader and force trader to be more consistent in trading. For example stick to average size of lots trader execute. Going this way they will get more profitable traders and traders will learn more control of risk. But this way there will be no fresh capital from sky is the limit and get rich quick traders and prop firms will need to deal more with hedging and working with own risk 
My view is like this. One model could be:
You start with small demo for free. Then second step you trade small capital and make small profit and take small share as trader. The more consistent you are the more capital and split you take. This way you prove yourself as trader and you get more trust from prop firm and more capital. But I think 3 months waiting to be scaled 20-25 % is too long, the path should be faster.
{quote} This looks not too bad. Unlimited time and only 1 phase evaluation with target 10%. Only drawback is limit targets are lower than standard evaluations.
Ignored
10% with 6% DD is not as good an offer as 13% with 10% DD (royal 2 stage program). When basing risk on max loss (which you ALWAYS should), you would pass the 2 phase approximately 20% FASTER than this one phase.
Keep in mind, the bigger picture here, is once you pass, you ALWAYS have 6% DD on the live. So essentially same fee for half the MAX LOS PERMANENTLY.
Lots of you like TFF in join with MFF, but, for forex TFF charge 2$ more commission (3.5$ vs 1.5$), how are their spread compared to MFF? If are the same, I guess TFF you use most for the indices and gold, correct?
I eliminated ment and surge, to keep focus on the best programs.
I was just thinking that 3.5$ commission of TFF and TFTP is too high for forex compared to MFF-FTMO-TFT
I believe the limit is 3$ but 2.5$ would be the best limit like the TFT fees. Don't know why TFF-TFTP has so high commission,
but that rate for a scalper is a big limit because for short trades to lose 0.7 pip in commission it's a lot.
May be they focus more on indixes and gold traders?
In fact, checking the payouts of TFF I see clearly that most of the gain are done on indexes and gold.
{quote} Interesting chart is so popular First Class Forex Funds? anyone of you can comment about them? I see they use eightcap, with which commission rate for forex?
Then on live account he takes x time more risk. And his friend from group trade with such big risk opposite him. One is losing account and second is winning big and they share after.
Ignored
This practice is useless and laughable. The first trader can do it with one account and all by himself. He will win (randomly) once out of 2 but since he will not share, it will be the same (and even better because there will be less cost)
{quote} 10% with 6% DD is not as good an offer as 13% with 10% DD (royal 2 stage program). When basing risk on max loss (which you ALWAYS should), you would pass the 2 phase approximately 20% FASTER than this one phase. Keep in mind, the bigger picture here, is once you pass, you ALWAYS have 6% DD on the live. So essentially same fee for half the MAX LOS PERMANENTLY.
Ignored
True. The problem with time limit is if you start bad then your target becomes much farther away from you and leads to overtrading or trading at a not good position with high leverage.
MyFundedFx and Finotive Funding offer the standard evaluation without time limit. Bother are quite new. MyFundedFx had friday outage of their broker software.
And Finotive Funding has some rules for taking not too large risks, max 50% of limits (probably they mean the daily drawdow limit so max 2.5 % limit.
{quote} The practice is useless mainly because you can win "only" about the daily DD % for a guaranteed profit on one account, i.e. half of it in average considering you lose one of the accounts. Any higher aspiration increases the risk of winning even less. I wouldn't be willing to make such an effort for such a small profit. Basically you have to earn 13-15% during eval and verif to be able to finally gain about 5% / 2 * 80% = 2% of payout. That's pathetic. If you are able to make those 13% why would you waste one of the two funded accounts gambling...
Ignored
And without counting the risk of error, the slippage which can be fatal on one of the accounts and in the end, with the imponderables, I even think that this system is a loser in the long term. As I said a little before, the risk for props is those who bet several and big in the same direction.
{quote} The practice is useless mainly because you can win "only" about the daily DD % for a guaranteed profit on one account, i.e. half of it in average considering you lose one of the accounts. Any higher aspiration increases the risk of winning even less. I wouldn't be willing to make such an effort for such a small profit. Basically you have to earn 13-15% during eval and verif to be able to finally gain about 5% / 2 * 80% = 2% of payout. That's pathetic. If you are able to make those 13% why would you waste one of the two funded accounts gambling...
This aren't my words to be clear, CEO said this is the practise they chase and bann traders do opposite trades. The second one is large amounts trades one direction. I believe everyone should have one important thing in mind. If you got some edge and you know how to trade to make profits long-term it sounds useless but this practises are mostly used by traders who are affected with be rich quick and not having edge on real markets approach, for them I think it might have sense.
Actually I know understand why some prop firms add consistency rules. For example Finotive says do not risk with one instrument more than 2.5 % daily. Fidel crest counts average lot size from challenges and tells u stick to this lot size. Futures prop firms got rules like " Your biggest profitable day cannot be more than 40-50% of all your profits".
They say is to protect traders but now is clear to me is to protect themselves (prop firms) against all this practises involving large hedging and big trades.
{quote} Half daily DD because you need 2 accounts. You lose one and win the daily DD on the other. In average you win equivalent of 1/2 of the DD if you used only 1 accout. But you're right that they can go slow and instead of daily DD their limit/target can be the total DD. So at the moment they lose the first account the other wins about the total DD amount. But still. In every round you lose one of two accounts and you need to go through another qualification process (means to win at least 13% again with no payback) to have 2 accounts again for...
