Un trader FONDEADO me INVITA a su casa a verle OPERAR EN VIVO

A deep dive into prop trading with Vicente Pons, revealing strategies, challenges, and live trading insights from a successful funded trader.

Key Takeaways

Prop trading involves trading on demo accounts with strict rules that can limit profitability.
Successful prop trading requires strong risk and bankroll management rather than just a winning strategy.
Many prop firms profit more from selling challenges than from paying traders who withdraw earnings.
Consistency and understanding firm rules are crucial to making funded trading profitable over time.
Vicente’s approach demonstrates that with discipline and strategy, it is possible to generate significant withdrawals.

What the video covers

Introduction to a new series exploring different trading styles including algorithmic, manual, discretionary, and systematic approaches.
Visit to Vicente Pons, a successful prop trader from Valencia who turned €500 into over €120,000 through prop firm challenges.
Discussion on the nature of prop firms, their business models, and the realities of trading on demo accounts with strict rules.
Vicente explains his trading methodology, risk management, and how withdrawals depend more on bankroll management than entry or exit points.
Insight into the challenges traders face with prop firms, including limitations on accounts and the importance of understanding firm rules.
Promotion of Vicente’s upcoming live session and trading room where he shares daily trades and teaches how to profit consistently from prop trading.
Emphasis on the importance of having sufficient capital to survive drawdowns and the statistical approach to maximizing probabilities.
Clarification that many prop firms earn more from selling challenges than paying out withdrawals, highlighting the difficulty of consistent profits.
Vicente’s personal experience with withdrawals, variance, and the need to be persistent and strategic in funded trading.
The video aims to provide transparency and realistic expectations for traders interested in making a living through prop trading.

Chapters

What is prop trading and how does it work?

Prop trading involves trading with capital provided by a proprietary trading firm, usually on demo accounts with strict rules. Traders pay for challenges or exams to qualify for funded accounts and share profits with the firm.

How does Vicente Pons achieve consistent profits in prop trading?

Vicente focuses on strong risk and bankroll management, using strategies that maximize probabilities and survive drawdowns rather than relying solely on winning entries or exits.

Are prop firms profitable for most traders?

Most traders lose in prop firms due to strict rules and demo account conditions. Prop firms often earn more from selling challenges than from paying out withdrawals, making it challenging to be consistently profitable.

Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown

Speaker A

Hello everyone, traders, and welcome to a new video where we are starting a series that I think you are going to really like. Over the next year, each month, we will visit the setups of algorithmic, manual, discretionary, and systematic traders of Forex, futures, stocks, prop firms, and much more. All this to see with my own eyes during a normal day of trading how much they earn, how much they lose, or how they think when they are live trading. Today

Speaker A

systematic traders of Forex, futures, stocks, prop firms, and much more. All this to see with my own eyes during a normal day of trading how much they earn, how much they lose, or how they think when they are live trading. Today

Speaker A

I am traveling to Valencia to visit one of the best prop traders I know, Vicente Pons from the Trad Esfera channel, a computer scientist who discovered a very peculiar way of using prop firm challenges to take advantage of them. He started with only €500 a

Speaker A

few years ago and to date has withdrawn more than € 120,000 from prop firms, results that he shows daily on his Telegram, where he explains every challenge he buys, how many he buys, how many he wins, or how many he loses.

Speaker A

few years ago and to date has withdrawn more than €120,000 from prop firms, results that he shows daily on his Telegram, where he explains every challenge he buys, how many he buys, how many he wins, or how many he loses.

Speaker A

learned, what kind of profitability he can get out of it, what type of strategy he uses, and how complex it is . And most importantly, if you really believe that anyone can do the same as him or if it is necessary to have

Speaker A

So I'm going to his office where he operates every day so he can show me exactly what he has done to withdraw that amount of money from prop firms. I want to know everything: how much he had to spend to achieve it, how he

Speaker A

And if not, what is the best trading style? My withdrawals have almost nothing to do with the entry or the exit; they have to do with what I can risk and what I want to earn, uh, with how I do

Speaker A

learned, what kind of profitability he can get out of it, what type of strategy he uses, and how complex it is. And most importantly, if you really believe that anyone can do the same as him or if it is necessary to have

Speaker A

don't always manage to get a withdrawal . I [would start] very early in the morning, uh, at 5 or 6 in the afternoon I would finish work, and then in the evening, while I go get my kids from

Speaker A

something that very few have. Join me to spend a day of trading with Vicente to try to draw the most important conclusion for everyone. Is prop trading really the best way to trade?

Speaker A

that are worse than random. their bias doesn't provide an edge, it subtracts from your edge; in other words, it’s worse than flipping a coin. Traders, before visiting Vicente, for those of you who want to make a living from prop

Speaker A

And if not, what is the best trading style? My withdrawals have almost nothing to do with the entry or the exit; they have to do with what I can risk and what I want to earn, uh, with how I do

Speaker A

for funded traders; a trading room where he will share, daily, from Monday to Friday, all his entries and. Along with the room, you will have access to a course in which Vicente will explain, step by step, how to take money out of

Speaker A

it to be able to do it, let's say, consistently. Okay? There are certain things, techniques, or I don't know what to call them, tricks that I use according to the rules to manage to maximize the probabilities, because you

Speaker A

the screen, which is a tracker. It is a platform he created himself to keep a record of all your prop firms and have a live track record in funded trading.

Speaker A

don't always manage to get a withdrawal. I [would start] very early in the morning, uh, at 5 or 6 in the afternoon I would finish work, and then in the evening, while I go get my kids from

Speaker A

as you see on screen, you just have to enter your email address and on the day of the live session you will receive a link to connect. Vicente, how are you?

Speaker A

their extracurriculars, is when I was trading from my mobile; I'm a computer scientist. I don't need a winning strategy to win; what I need is to have a strategy that is at least random, that is not worse, because most people have strategies

Speaker A

basically for them to understand that a funded trader like you does things that are a priori different from most traders, and many people don't know that. So, so that people can have a main or general idea of who you are and

Speaker A

that are worse than random. Their bias doesn't provide an edge, it subtracts from your edge; in other words, it’s worse than flipping a coin. Traders, before visiting Vicente, for those of you who want to make a living from prop

Speaker A

look for and understand which companies —because not all of them work—have the necessary rules to be able to make them profitable over time, by analyzing the rules, avoiding certain things that some have, like trailing drawdowns or rules that prevent you from making

Speaker A

firms, as he does, let me tell you that this Saturday, December 20th, Vicente will give a private class on how to live off prop trading. There, he will explain everything he does and present, for the first time, his trading room

Speaker A

but rather with the bankroll management we've mentioned before, right? Having enough money to withstand the attempts by taking advantage of a bit of symmetric risk, which, well, I think many people already know, with those tools and applying quick hits according

Speaker A

for funded traders; a trading room where he will share, daily, from Monday to Friday, all his entries and. Along with the room, you will have access to a course in which Vicente will explain, step by step, how to take money out of

Speaker A

and after a while, I manage to withdraw more than what I’ve invested. Sometimes it’s double, it depends sometimes on variance, but always withdraw more than you spend. That, in the end, means you’re winning. And so that people—because many people might

Speaker A

prop firms just like he does. If you want to make a living trading with funded accounts, you cannot miss the live session this Saturday, December 20th. Just for coming, Vicente will give you what you are seeing here on

Speaker A

Okay, contrary to what they tell us, that these are companies that lend us capital to take a percentage of our profits, that's a bit of what was mostly marketing before. Now many of them don't even do that anymore, but

Speaker A

the screen, which is a tracker. It is a platform he created himself to keep a record of all your prop firms and have a live track record in funded trading.

Speaker A

lose. So, they earn more with that money they collect from the exams than what they have to pay the few, like me, who make withdrawals. So, that is basically their model. Selling exams to many people, many of whom are not

Speaker A

So just for attending the live session, you will get it for free, in addition to an incredible discount for his trading room. You can reserve your spot for Vicente's live session at the link I've left here in the description, and

Speaker A

millions of dollars or euros, and the few of us who withdraw are paid from that money they have collected. We are not generating profits with a real account; we operate on demo accounts.

Speaker A

as you see on screen, you just have to enter your email address and on the day of the live session you will receive a link to connect. Vicente, how are you?

Speaker A

So they need to leverage themselves in some way through business models where companies, as you say, give you challenges or exams; you pay a generally affordable price for them.

Speaker A

Locked. Thank you for inviting me to your offices. Uh, as I explained to you before, we had a coffee outside, and I would like people to see more or less what your business model is as a trader, okay? Profile. The main idea is

Speaker A

They aren't real accounts; they give you what they call a live sim account, a master account, or...what is it called? Uh, progress, or other various names just to avoid saying what it actually is, which is a demo account.

Speaker A

basically for them to understand that a funded trader like you does things that are a priori different from most traders, and many people don't know that. So, so that people can have a main or general idea of who you are and

Speaker A

the whole process that many people are continuously repeating, spending money, failing to withdraw, and that’s where the companies get their profits; that's basically it.

Speaker A

what you do, can you explain what you do as a trader? Okay, well, right now I really focus on funded accounts. And what I do, and the main thing I've seen that works for me, or the key is to

Speaker A

can withdraw is, in theory, much more than what you invest. So, in the long run, just like in normal trading, you have to achieve a positive expectancy.

Speaker A

look for and understand which companies — because not all of them work — have the necessary rules to be able to make them profitable over time, by analyzing the rules, avoiding certain things that some have, like trailing drawdowns or rules that prevent you from making

Speaker A

right? If every time you lose you lose 1 and every time you win you win three, and you win half the time, that's already profitable. In the long run, it's just repeating it many times and having the companies pay you out. Sure.

Speaker A

withdrawals or require you to make a lot, a lot of profit in order to withdraw. Certain things that we can look at today or later in detail, and with that, applying certain strategies that have nothing to do with entries,

Speaker A

the prop firm sector you're dedicated to is just one specific part of that whole swarm or range of options, right?

Speaker A

but rather with the bankroll management we've mentioned before, right? Having enough money to withstand the attempts by taking advantage of a bit of symmetric risk, which, well, I think many people already know, with those tools and applying quick hits according

Speaker A

Because there are different ones. That's what I want to tell you. Furthermore, within prop trading, I specialize in futures prop accounts and futures firms, because they differ from CFDs.

Speaker A

to the goals we need to first get funded and then withdraw. Well, with that, we manage to make, let's say, more withdrawals than what we spend on exams. It’s a bit like that. I invest x amount of money in exams

Speaker A

You also have to keep in mind that just because an account is $ 50,000 doesn't mean you have that; it's leverage.

Speaker A

and after a while, I manage to withdraw more than what I’ve invested. Sometimes it’s double, it depends sometimes on variance, but always withdraw more than you spend. That, in the end, means you’re winning. And so that people—because many people might

Speaker A

withdrawal exams that allow you to withdraw more on average than what you spend on exams, it will work for you.

Speaker A

be watching this video and don't even know what funding is. I understand they might, eh? I understand many people do, but could you explain it to put the cards on the table? What is the funding model?

Speaker A

okay? Because in the end, you're trying to pass a test that has rules designed for you to lose, where you have a very tight margin; even if you do it very well, the most likely outcome is actually losing, because if you have,

Speaker A

Okay, contrary to what they tell us, that these are companies that lend us capital to take a percentage of our profits, that's a bit of what was mostly marketing before. Now many of them don't even do that anymore, but

Speaker A

have that. I have several applications that calculate that asymmetric risk, oh , excuse me, that risk of ruin, which I think should be below five percent to start, right? It's a high risk in an investment system, but for this, it's

Speaker A

people who, let's say, make videos often still say that, and that's really not the case. Funding companies, their business model is to make money through the fees from the exams that people buy. The majority of people who buy them

Speaker A

bankroll. To be able to scale the accounts a little bit. That's a bit of what you need to achieve: start with enough of a bankroll so the risk isn't too high, so the odds of losing, let's say, all your money in just two or

Speaker A

lose. So, they earn more with that money they collect from the exams than what they have to pay the few, like me, who make withdrawals. So, that is basically their model. Selling exams to many people, many of whom are not

Speaker A

That's a bit of what I do and how I started. I started with evaluation accounts, where the accounts were only $ 5,000, and they cost $ 30. So, with little money, 500, 600 €, you could have 20, uh, attempts to succeed. The

Speaker A

winners because they apply systems. First, they aren't, even if they might win in a real account, here they don't win or don't win as much, and then the majority generally lose. So, well, with those fees they earn many, many

Speaker A

But, When did you start doing this? Uh, to win, I started winning at the end of 2023, with funded accounts maybe a year before that. I discovered it and lost like everyone else.

Speaker A

millions of dollars or euros, and the few of us who withdraw are paid from that money they have collected. We are not generating profits with a real account; we operate on demo accounts.

Speaker A

I mean, it hasn't changed, the rules have changed many times. CFD firms, for me, are now harder than when I started.

Speaker A

That is the reality. So, well, that is the model that this has. I mean, for people to understand: nowadays, there are difficulties in accessing capital, so to speak; most traders have trouble getting capital.

Speaker A

example, it was very common for futures companies to have an activation fee. Now, more and more don't have an activation fee. With the exam price being a little bit higher. The withdrawal rules are also different.

Speaker A

So they need to leverage themselves in some way through business models where companies, as you say, give you challenges or exams; you pay a generally affordable price for them.

Speaker A

much greater, because I understand there is a lot of money being made in that funded market, which also makes other companies appear that lower their standards a bit to be attractive. The ones that have been around longer also

Speaker A

Right? Pretty cheap. And that allows you to go through a series of phases, and if you pass, they lend you that capital, but in reality, there's a catch; it's not real capital.

Speaker A

So that keeps changing. Yes. And could you explain—we’ll dig a little deeper into this now because I’m very interested in touching on all the branches. We have time, right?

Speaker A

They aren't real accounts; they give you what they call a live sim account, a master account, or... what is it called? Uh, progress, or other various names just to avoid saying what it actually is, which is a demo account.

Speaker A

Yes, it's better to let the movement settle down a bit. I like these What, I mean, on a day like today, for example, so people understand, let's put ourselves a bit in the shoes of someone who doesn't know what funded

Speaker A

So, from that demo account, if you hit certain targets, they pay you a prize, but if you don't and you hit certain drawdown limits, you lose it. So, by losing it, you have to buy another exam, try to get fund

Speaker A

I think there are many people who might be watching this who don't really know what we're explaining, right? So, right now, what we are looking at, what is it ? I mean, what are they seeing?

Speaker A

Well, this is the Nasdaq chart, okay? Which is the scene of U.S. tech companies, and here we are looking at a chart of how it moves. Uh, the open, I believe, was here at 3:30; it started falling hard, now it's rising, it's a

Speaker A

bit range-bound. So, I'm not connected here right now, I think, to any...well, yes, I am, I connect here to the different companies I have, okay? That is, for example, I have two live or master accounts now at this company

Speaker A

called Funding Pips, one for 150,000 and another for 51,000. What does that mean? That these are accounts from which I can make withdrawals if I meet the goals, which we can go into more detail about later if you want. Then

Speaker A

I'm in more, right now I also have an account at this company and another that doesn't operate with this platform , okay? Which we can also look at later if you want. That is, this is the trading platform, let's say, par

Speaker A

excellence for futures, which is NinjaTrader. There are other companies that use others, and honestly, it doesn't matter to me; what matters are the rules. So, if they are good, I'll go there too. So I operate at another company called Topstep that uses

Speaker A

another platform that we can see later, where, for example, I've made a withdrawal; yesterday they paid me one.

Speaker A

Anyway, what I look for is, I connect here, I look at the accounts I have, I look at what goal or what I have to do in each, for example, in this account, in these three accounts, okay? In this

Speaker A

one, I have one day left, if I remember correctly, but well. Uh, the withdrawal rules are 5 days of 150 hours. Well, I have four, if I'm not mistaken, I'm missing one. So, today the only thing I want to do is make $ 150 in this

Speaker A

account to be able to withdraw tomorrow , okay? In these, I have more days left , okay, to reach the withdrawal goal.

Speaker A

So I check to see what I need to achieve. Ultimately, they are generally daily monetary goals, or even in this one, for example, I have to take the account to 52,000, I have 800 left. So maybe today I say, "Come on, if I see

Speaker A

that the market today is very much in a range, which I like reversals, I'll start trading until I reach that goal, right?" I mean, what people want to know, I mean, right now we have a platform where you trade the Nasdaq, there are

Speaker A

different assets, and what you do through NinjaTrader is link all your funding accounts, the companies that work with NinjaTrader, you link them here, correct? When you connect, you can connect to each of them and you just switch between them, right? I

Speaker A

understand that Exactly. Here in the account section, I am currently in this company's account where I need one more day to win and the others, well, here they are, this one is for simulating, this one is useless, but these three are all demo

Speaker A

accounts, let's say, but if I achieve what they ask of me, I can withdraw, okay? Okay.

Speaker A

All three are. I have another one that is an evaluation that I don't have connected here because I bought it yesterday. I still have to connect another one from another company and the Top Step one, which is indeed live,

Speaker A

which in fact today I withdrew, uh, sorry, I requested a withdrawal, they haven't paid me yet; it takes a couple of days to pay usually, and yesterday, uh, I received the payment for another one I requested last week.

Speaker A

Okay, if you want, I'll put this on screen, I'll ask you for the screenshots if you want and people can see more or less, or if you want, you can show them.

Speaker A

Yes, we can look at it, right? It's not a big problem. Okay, this is the other platform. In the end, the asset is the same, eh? futures. Well, this is the micro, but here I operated in, let's say, smaller positions, where the goal

Speaker A

is small, but well, this is what I did today, 152, which is what we need to request a withdrawal. So here in Payout today, look, I requested a withdrawal that is pending, I requested it this morning. Today is the 12th, right?

Speaker A

Yes. Or yes, no, 12/9, sorry. This is backwards. This is in American or English format. So, well, here is the withdrawal. It has to go through all these steps until they pay me, okay ? Yesterday they paid me the previous

Speaker A

one, which is this one, and this one a few days ago. I don't have all the records from this company here because this is a new dashboard that came out a few months ago, and the others are in

Speaker A

the previous one, but anyway, anyway, in about a month, we’ve made these withdrawals, almost 7,000 or almost 10,000, actually.

Speaker A

And how do you explain to people that they offer real money that is being paid to you? So, we are talking about you completing a series of phases they ask for, for example, so people get an idea.

Speaker A

Of these types of companies, Topstep for example, what does it do? What does it ask of you?

Speaker A

Well, it asks me to first buy one. Now this account, here I only have one account, okay, which is master. This account is already set up to be able to request withdrawals if I do what I'm about to tell you. But first, before

Speaker A

achieving this, I have to buy an exam, okay? There are several models of different sizes and different prices.

Speaker A

You have to know which one to buy, okay ? No, not all of them work, well, all of them can work, but there is always one that is better, one or two. So, you would buy it and here they set the

Speaker A

rules. For example, this account, which is the one I have, the 150,000 one, okay? You have to get $ 9,000 in profit .

Speaker A

Virtual, right? Virtual, the demo account, being able to lose a maximum of 4,500, okay? With something called end-of-day drawdown, or that follows you at the end of the day, which is trailing. That is, if I earn an amount today, the next day it

Speaker A

resets. I go back to being able to lose a maximum of 4,500. I mean, you always have 4,500, even if you earn, it follows you, right? Let's say, at the end of the day; during the day it can be more. If I earn 2,000 now,

Speaker A

then I'll have 6,500. When the day ends , it resets for me, the day resets.

Speaker A

It's true that there comes a point where it becomes static, okay? But these are details that are important, but maybe people don't really care about them.

Speaker A

So, what I have to do is achieve this without losing this basically, and at most follow the consistency rule here.

Speaker A

It's not written here, but I know it by heart because the most important things are the rules, and I know these firms I use by heart. So, you have to earn at most 50%of the target in a single day.

Speaker A

That is to say, I can't—if one day I earn 5,000 instead of 4,500, which is half the target, I would have to earn another 5,000 the next day, meaning reaching 10,000 moves the target further away, okay? Because of the

Speaker A

consistency. It's important, that is very important. So, there are certain rules that must be met to get...you spend here, and they give you this account. If you lose it, well, you've lost that money. In fact, when you buy

Speaker A

it, you've already lost that money. If you manage to pass it, then they give you an account like the one I have, okay? In which, to be able to withdraw, you have to have at least 5 days of $

Speaker A

150. Okay? Alright. And from those earnings you have in the balance, you can only withdraw 50%, half, okay? So, it's 750, you could withdraw about 325, and your drawdown from now on, instead of being 4,500, will be what's left

Speaker A

there, which would be 300,000. That's why I don't usually do that. I usually try to bring the account to 8,000 or 9,000 to withdraw 4,000 and leave another 4,000, because otherwise —well, you can do it at the beginning

Speaker A

, but the account is dead, you leave very little wiggle room at the end. So, it's a battle against their rules. So, you constantly have to understand what they want you to do and what you should actually do, which is different. One

Speaker A

thing is what they want, and another is what you have to do to withdraw and then try to make that account last for another withdrawal, because it's important; if you only withdraw once in the long term, it probably won't be

Speaker A

profitable for you, okay? But at the beginning, there are times when, depending on your bankroll, if you are just starting out, sometimes it's worth it to withdraw and lose the account to grow it a little, rather than trying to carry it further,

Speaker A

because if you lose it, you have to buy another one. I mean, there are moments when all this is a bit, well, it’s not mathematical, but it depends, it’s like, I don't know how to say it , it depends on your roll, you do one

Speaker A

thing or another, it’s quite flexible . In fact, you have to be flexible, always doing the same thing. That’s fine, but there are moments when you think, wow, because I set a goal to make 10,000 to withdraw 5,000. I’ve

Speaker A

earned 9,500, am I going to leave yeah 4,000 and something to win only 500, which in the end I’ll only get 250.

Speaker A

Yeah, yeah, there are times when you say, well, let’s stop, withdraw and then we'll see.

Speaker A

Okay, you have to be flexible. That’s an important thing because we were also mentioning the topic of rules or goals, and I understand they are different in every company.

Speaker A

They are different. The ones I’ve told you about are similar. Why? Because I look for a specific thing and avoid others. There are tons of companies, so many for the future.

Speaker A

There are just, there are more than 20 or even more. And good ones, maybe quite a few, more than 10. But good ones, I mean, that pay or are paying, and that means there are people who sometimes don't pay. The truth is,

Speaker A

those that don't pay or give you more problems. Yes, yes, yes. If you go for the newer ones, or at least you don't know if they pay.

Speaker A

I’m currently testing one. It probably pays, but I want to see that it pays me. And that research process I do, well, look, for example, that account I told you about earlier, which is this one, maybe here is better. I

Speaker A

have it at 50,000 now. Okay, now I could withdraw if I reach 150 and I’m going to request it, even if I withdraw 500, half, I’ll only have 500 left. I’ll just lose it, but my goal here isn't to make money, it's to

Speaker A

see if it pays. Okay? So the goal is different. If I see that it pays, well, maybe I’ll buy more accounts. I always do that a bit; even if people tell me it’s paying, I want to see it firsthand. I’m not going to

Speaker A

buy 10 accounts, be there for three months, and then request 10,000 and not get paid.

Speaker A

So I do like, probing, right? With the newer ones to see if they pay, and I add them to the group of the ones I like. Right, you do this because, I understand from what I know, the funding model isn't regulated. So,

Speaker A

these types of firms, as you were saying, their goal is to live, their main profit, let's say, comes from traders who lose.

Speaker A

So, if at some point a trader makes a killing, right? I mean, you make more than you should for them, uh, that scares them and, well, they can limit you.

Speaker A

Has that happened to you? It has happened to me at one company, at two it has happened, but the one that hurt me the most was one where I had all my accounts there, I had more than 15

Speaker A

accounts. Uh, it’s true that I had a small slip-up, it’s true I broke a rule for 2 minutes and that was enough for them to take away a bunch of accounts where I hadn't broken anything, but anyway, in the end, it has happened to

Speaker A

me and I know other people it has happened to as well, where they suddenly limit them or kick them out, it has happened. Those companies should be avoided because there are others that limit you in a, let's say, better

Speaker A

way, right? That put you on live, well, they do certain things that I even see as reasonable and a way to limit the people who are making a killing, as you mentioned. But yes, it has happened to me, they have limited me, they won't

Speaker A

let me buy accounts. For example, MyFundedFutures happened to me, they limited me, they won't let me buy more, now they let me again. Anyway, it’s something that doesn't depend on us.

Speaker A

Since it's not regulated, as you say, in the end, it's the company that, at its discretion, will tell you, you can, you can't, now uh because you sign a contract, right?

Speaker A

Because when you, I mean, let's say someone who starts this, you buy the challenges, you pay whatever, the 100 and something, 70, whatever, then you do the two phases, which are usually two phases, right? Or I mean, futures is one phase, right?

Speaker A

I mean, you say one phase and then there’s the withdrawal one, right? Okay. So, uh, that second withdrawal phase, the phase that is for withdrawal , it’s not real money yet. They are paying you with the losses of the

Speaker A

majority of people, right? That's it. What happens? That there is a certain moment when they limit you, but as you say, they limit you because they send you to live.

Speaker A

Correct. Which we talked about off-camera earlier. I find it very interesting because when many people do funding, what they want is to go Live, right? At the beginning, they want to go live because this way the company trusts me and is putting me in the real

Speaker A

market. Why do you think that's bad? Because it’s usually the exit door. Okay, it's like, I don't know, in a casino you want to be at the table with the best, right? But maybe they only let you play there once.

Speaker A

And if they fleece you, they won't let you play anymore. This is similar; I mean, I'm live now because you're hurting them. So they say, "Okay, this guy has withdrawn 60,000, 100,000 from me; I'm going to create an account as I

Speaker A

please with $ 3,000, he won't hurt me more than those 3,000 I'm putting in there." If he loses it, bye. And if he manages to keep withdrawing, great. But with a drawdown on a single account of 2,000 or 3,000, making withdrawals like

Speaker A

the ones I try to make is very difficult because you have to be making , I don't know, 100%every week, and that, well, there are always exceptions , right? Really, most people are going to lose that account at some point if

Speaker A

you're too aggressive early on, and if you're less aggressive later, what you'll withdraw will be similar. Okay, I went live, I withdrew several times, and in the end, I lost that account, and once they send you live and you

Speaker A

lose the account, they decide whether to let you buy again or not, and generally, they don't let you. Sure, they either let you spin the wheel again or they limit you, look, this month I'm only going to activate one

Speaker A

account for you, they don't let you buy more, they let you buy, but they'll only activate one account to master. So, even if you buy 10 evaluations that month and pass 10, only one will be able to move to master. So you are

Speaker A

limited in earnings, because if it's one per month, that's 12 a year, 12 a year, how much can you withdraw? 10,000 . They already know that with you, they will only lose 10,000 at most. So, they keep limiting you.

Speaker A

You can keep taking money from them, but you are no longer a problem for them, or not as much of a problem.

Speaker A

Those firms, to me, are serious. Mind you, that’s a serious one. The ones that aren't serious simply don't pay you and say goodbye.

Speaker A

I mean, let's say the unserious ones just won't pay you and will kick you out. There are others that are serious, which, within their reasonable rules, uh, they tell you, "Look, my limitation , since you're winning a lot in virtual

Speaker A

, is that I'm paying you from my own wallet, so I'll move you to live because there we share, I mean, let's compare costs and profits, and if you prove you can win, I'll keep paying you, but since I

Speaker A

assume the risk, the company limits you a lot, and therefore you can't earn as much." Exactly, they can't—if you want to earn more, you take those profits and put them into a real account yourself, but that has nothing to do with what I

Speaker A

do. That's a different story. I wanted to ask you that, why? How do you explain to people why you don't want to ? I mean, I understand that limitation, but there's a huge difference between the limitation they put on you in live

Speaker A

and what you can potentially earn in virtual. Of course, imagine that in this company I can have up to five 50k accounts.

Speaker A

Let's count the drawdown, okay? Let's say it's 4,500, uh, times 4,000, that's 40,000 in drawdown, basically. Sure, with 40,000 in drawdown, you can withdraw quite a bit in simulated. If they give you a single account with 3,000 in drawdown and you withdraw it,

Speaker A

it's like you're approximately it's you have more or less 10 times the potential for withdrawal. So, generally , it doesn't work out well. They aren't going to give you 10 accounts of 5,000 in drawdown with their money. It's

Speaker A

counterintuitive because most people want to go to live, but in this model, at least with your way of doing it, it doesn't make sense to do that; you prefer to stay in the virtual phase, right? To stay and withdraw, but

Speaker A

virtual, correct. And if they move me to live, then I'll trade in live and, if they give me good conditions, I'll manage to withdraw; but I'll be with another company that also lets me stay in simulated or with their, let's say,

Speaker A

that's where I can win the most. That's where the symmetrical risk allows me to earn much more than what I invest. In live you can too, but really much less.

Speaker A

At least the way I do it, of course, that's for people who, well, anyway, And speaking a bit about the final goal , as I said, this series of videos I'm going to make, I want to show what you

Speaker A

can actually earn in each trading style , okay? In this case, we're seeing that the initial investment seems to be small, that's what everyone thinks, right? That is to say, with a few hundred euros I can leverage myself or

Speaker A

I can manage capital, so to speak, and live off that. You, when, how do you do it? What, what results do you have? How, what do you think you can earn monthly? uh in this type of business model,

Speaker A

okay? In terms of, I mean, monthly, months where you earn more or less. I look at it annually, right? Meaning, well this year I've withdrawn X, so on average, so what I've withdrawn, we can see it with the tracker I have if you

Speaker A

want, okay? This is the tool I use to track my things, okay? So this is what I've withdrawn this year minus the expenses, okay? That is, I've withdrawn 60, these are euros. Yeah, okay. This is the net profit before taxes,

Speaker A

important. And these are the expenses, which are basically exam activations, okay? And this is the profit curve we've had this year, when there are little green mountains it's what we've withdrawn, and the red ones are exam purchases, basically. We've made 76 withdrawals

Speaker A

this year, not bad. If we compare it to last year, last year is quite similar.

Speaker A

Yes. In fact, it's quite similar, okay? We had more withdrawals, 89, perhaps smaller ones at the beginning. The curve is also similar, maybe lower here , a year ago it went very well. So, well the same, many evaluations. Here

Speaker A

are the live accounts we've obtained with these evaluations, and well, the average, the best withdrawal was 2,700, the worst day is what I've spent the most on exams in one day.

Speaker A

The ones you bought in one day, right? Exactly. And here I have the top companies, let's say, that I've withdrawn from, right? Well here we were, for example, this company Funding Pips is CFDs, and it's the number one

Speaker A

from last year. Okay, when you were still trading CFDs. Yes, well this is CFD. These are futures.

Speaker A

Futures. Futures. Look, this is the company that I made for myself. Okay, so well, and here I have all the data.

Speaker A

So, let's say, so people understand, what we're looking at there is the total number of evaluations you've done . These are the exams that you, in 2024 in this case, uh, took. Of those exams, those 213, which is a lot for most

Speaker A

people, I'm sure they seem like a huge number of exams because they are used to, uh, trying, as we said, right, to trade one , trying to scale it, but that's not your approach, which we'll talk about later. So, from those assessments, you

Speaker A

moved to real, to that phase where you can get paid, right? Because it gives you a 23.5% funding ratio, right? And those 23 represent an expense that you paid out of your own pocket of 22,200.

Speaker A

Yes. From that, you've earned, you've withdrawn 62,000, and what you have left net before taxes is those 40- something.

Speaker A

Um, the fact that we see these expenses, okay, for example, that you've listed, means that you can deduct them. Correct . Yes, these are deductible expenses, which in the end are a necessary cost, or at least that's what I'm told—I'm

Speaker A

no expert—to be able to carry out this activity, right? It's like, I don't know, uh, a fee you pay to be able to access that income, okay? So yes, it is deducted as an expense because it's earned income.

Speaker A

Correct. Yes, I have to be self-employed to do it. Many people don't understand that, which, uh, I wanted to ask you, because when you dedicate yourself to trading with a traditional broker, you go to the market. So, when you go to the market,

Speaker A

you pay based on capital gains, right? So, uh, it's different from what you're doing. Yes, it is different. Here, it's also true that it's not something that is, how should I put it, it's so rare that I don't think there's a, there's

Speaker A

no common consensus, I think. I've asked several advisors, and some have even recommended I do the other, but in the end, I decided on the option where I believe you pay more taxes, it's true , but you're also more at ease. So,

Speaker A

well, I try to do what I think, uh, allows me to be more at ease. In the end, I know I might be paying more in taxes than what I could be paying doing the other, but it's also true that it

Speaker A

depends a bit on the amounts, and there isn't much difference anyway. So, well, I, I am self-employed for this reason, because in the end it's earned income, because it's classified that way according to what the advisor told me.

Speaker A

I am no expert in that, and well, what you have to do is pay your self-employment fee, file your quarterly income tax, and then annually , the tax office settles it with any other income you might have, and that's

Speaker A

it. That's just so people know, regarding scalability, right? Like, if someone, for example, something I often try to convey—I don't know what you think—is that many people show their withdrawals.

Speaker A

Yes, of course. But then, of course, if you show withdrawals, you could say, "Look, I've withdrawn 60-something," right?

Speaker A

Sure, I can do this. Look, see how nice this looks. You're missing something here. I've withdrawn 130, almost 130,000 € since '24, and that is true . Yes, yes, yes.

Speaker A

Well, I've spent almost 50,000 on exams . Sure. And then take away the taxes here too.

Speaker A

This is the net; it's much less than that. So, of course, if they only show you the 125,000, you think this guy is a genius, right? But the reality is that he surely has expenses, and besides, if you're in Spain, you also

Speaker A

have to file, spend on self-employment taxes, spend on advisory services, spend on things that also have to be paid, right? Those are the earnings. No business that I know of only has earnings. They all have expenses, and this is just another one, 100%. So,

Speaker A

let's say, doing the math, this can be divided by the months, and it's about 4 or 5,000 € a month more or less that you could be earning since...

Speaker A

maybe a little less, right? Because there are months that I have earned more, I've withdrawn 18,000 and maybe I've earned more, but there are other months where I've been flat, right?

Speaker A

I've been break-even. On average, if we can calculate it, right? 81,000 divided by 24, how much is that? It's about...

Speaker A

Well, it doesn't quite reach 24, four more or less, right? Three, four around there.

Speaker A

Yes, actually last year, well, you have to take that into account, but anyway, last year I stopped trading in November a bit, I think it was, right? Yes, in November I stopped trading because my son was born and I was on leave, and

Speaker A

now we aren't at the end of the year, two months, but well, yes, more or less it was that, right? 40,000 divided by 12 is 3,000 and something, right?

Speaker A

Yeah, yeah, more or less. 12,300 euros more or less. I mean, in other words, you're ultimately making a salary, a salary, a salary. Uh, and so people get an idea , to earn this, to make this salary, do

Speaker A

you only do this? No, well, until now, no. Okay, up until now I had a job. Uh, I worked as an IT specialist. It is true that I was just laid off recently. So, uh, maybe now, well, now I am going to

Speaker A

dedicate myself only to this and that will also surely allow me to get better results, I hope, right? Because I used to trade this in my free time, uh, I still check it from my phone, on the subway, you saw it when we were doing

Speaker A

this together, you'd message me, I was better off underground in the train, with no connection and I'd say, "Wait, what happened?" And I had open positions. So, well, it wasn't the best way. I know I must have lost times when

Speaker A

surely I wouldn't have if I'd done things differently, but well, I came out a winner and kept doing it. So now by finding better times to trade better , maybe I can have better results. Wait , maybe I'll have worse ones, eh, you

Speaker A

never know either. Yeah, maybe I'll have to go back to the phone again, but yeah, I haven't, up until now I haven't dedicated myself only to that.

Speaker A

It was just a hobby, actually. How did you do it? How did you link a job with something like this?

Speaker A

Sorry, I was asking how you linked the fact of working, I assume, at a traditional job. The 8- hour workday.

Speaker A

Uh, with this, how do you link that? What was your? Well, I worked, uh, until, I started very early in the morning. At 5 in the afternoon, 5 or 6, I'd finish work and then in the afternoon while I go pick

Speaker A

up my kids from extracurriculars is when I was trading from my phone. It's also true that I had some automations, I'm an IT guy, a programmer, I had some things automated, I've dabbled with some algorithmic trading, though more

Speaker A

as support tools than 100%automatic, right? Uh, so, well, balancing it that way, trading mostly in the afternoon when I wasn't working anymore, wherever it was.

Speaker A

That is kind of how it is. Um, and in this way, basically, so it was something you carried out in parallel to your job, then, as a hobby, right? As you were saying, like a hobby .

Speaker A

Yes, there are people who, well, in the afternoons go biking or do something much healthier that I recommend, uh, which but anyway. And I was doing that. The truth is that, well, sometimes it was exhausting; the reality is there are

Speaker A

days when you're there at 9 at night with a position open, which weren't very fun, but well, in the end, I'd end up withdrawing and it paid off, right?

Speaker A

But yeah. And could you show, for example, what your trading is like? Sure. Uh, many people, when they trade, like everyone else, develop strategies or think of ways to try to have an edge in the market and make money. How do you

Speaker A

do it? How do you manage to withdraw that amount of money from the market?

Speaker A

Look, so here is the position that we made today, that we won, that allowed us to request a withdrawal, this one of 15. Why 2? Because I think it's a certain minimum to withdraw. I had already built a cushion before for that

Speaker A

withdrawal, okay? So, here I look for, mainly I look for reversals, uh, I use the stochastic, many people ask me for the settings, very good, but it's not important, okay? It's just support. So here you see, well, stochastic, an EMA,

Speaker A

it touches there, I look for a short, I win it, uh, here the other way around, uh, stochastic below, an EMA, boom, up, I win it, and there will be more here similar too, you see? Boom, to the

Speaker A

upside. They are small reversals in this that I look for, uh, to win. Basically, the goal I look for in that account.

Speaker A

Do you always look for the target they ask of you? Yes, that they ask for or what I set for myself, because sometimes, for example, look, this account I have to take it to...maybe we'll try today, you know? If we can do it, right? Take it

Speaker A

to 52,000. Uh, I have 2,000 down, I need 800, so I'm going to try to take it to 52,000. Why? Because from there on, with two more days, I think, of 150 , I can already withdraw. So, uh, and

Speaker A

it's not today, what am I going to do? If I had to do it, we'll try that later , well, look for reversals with targets of 100, 200, 300 per trade, 3 or 4 trades is the goal.

Speaker A

That's with one account, then if I have time, I operate the next one. Like now, I don't have many, now I have two, three, four, five, four funded and one evaluation.

Speaker A

I've had many more than that. I’ve realized that when, at least until now, when I was managing many, obviously, you try to trade them all every day; if you’re running 10 or 15 accounts, it’s difficult, and in the end, you

Speaker A

end up placing trades just for the sake of it, maybe with too large a lot size because you're in a hurry for the position to close, and sometimes you do stupid things.

Speaker A

Sometimes you win too, though. But generally, I don’t think that’s the way, and lately, I’ve been trying to have larger accounts with more drawdown, basically. And to have fewer for the time being. For now, I’ll just automate a few more things again.

Speaker A

Anyway. Okay, perfect. And I also wanted to ask you, because many people, when you’ve been coming on the channel...and we were talking earlier about how now, of course, you've left your job, you have more free time, and many people ask you how you do it,

Speaker A

because it’s a different way of, uh, doing prop trading. Because many of those listening or watching you will surely be struck by the idea...there will be people who perhaps don't know the model and you'll be the first person they've met who does this, but

Speaker A

there are many others who might have tried prop trading but haven't achieved results because they're doing it the traditional way. Uh, we were talking earlier about how now in December, as I mentioned at the beginning, you’re going to launch your prop trading

Speaker A

training, uh, with the goal of letting people get to know a bit more about what you do.

Speaker A

Can you explain your idea behind all of that? Well, look, it’s exactly as you say. Many are trading prop accounts in a way that I don’t think is the most optimal, or at least not according to my approach, and many people in the

Speaker A

Telegram group I have, which is free, and, well, the channel we also have, where I show my trading operations, right? So that people can see a bit of what I do.

Speaker A

Uh, many people write to me there, right? Saying they want to do what I do , how I do it, and so on. So, well, the idea came up to be able to show this, uh, in a more personal way to people.

Speaker A

So, well, the idea is basically for them to see how I do it. It's true that the information has perhaps all been told already, but I’m going to try— or rather, I’ve built a more organized way to tell it—and, above

Speaker A

all, to have you with me during my trades so you can see how I approach things, right? Why I choose this firm, what I try to do, or what goals I look for each day with these rules, because

Speaker A

I believe the important thing isn't so much the entry or exit, as many people think—which is what they’re constantly looking for, the magic system—but rather seeing how you manage to get a payout, which is what matters. In the end, many times my

Speaker A

payouts have almost nothing to do with the entry or exit. They have to do with what I can risk and what I want to earn , and how I do it to be able to do it, let's say, consistently. Okay? There

Speaker A

are certain things—techniques or I don't know what to call them, tricks— that I use according to the rules to try to maximize the probabilities, though you don't always succeed, of getting a payout. And that is a bit of

Speaker A

what the training covers, in addition to other support tools that we are also going to share, right? For example, right now, that tracker I showed is public; people can request access through the platform and I give them access, just as I use it, because for

Speaker A

me, it's a useful tool. We are going to add even more tools, which I hope will be more useful, that we have so that people can maintain that control and do it in a more professional way. That is

Speaker A

to say, funding isn't—the way I see it—just "this company has a discount, oh how cool, I'll buy it, let's see if I can withdraw the 3,000 they ask for." That will almost certainly end up with you losing. You have to have a plan.

Speaker A

And to have a plan, you first have to do some preliminary work, which is what I will explain—how I did it and how I think it should be done—and then just keep repeating that. In the end, it’s a bit of a personal methodology that I

Speaker A

use, which I hope will be useful to people. In the group, there are people who are doing it on their own and it’s working for them. Well, and yourself as well.

Speaker A

I mean, as I have said many times, I have literally followed what you do.

Speaker A

Obviously, everyone has their own thing because many people focus on the strategy, and we'll see later when you make an entry that it's not so much the strategy, but rather, as you rightly say, the methodology you use to squeeze

Speaker A

the model. And that's what's interesting: that many people don't know that, if you get the methodology right, how you build your risk management, where you push harder, where you ease up, when you withdraw, when you don't, which companies you

Speaker A

look at, because the companies, honestly, that's what shocked me the most, because there are companies that make minimal rules, right? Where a single rule different from another makes the operation have to change, the model you had to execute it has to

Speaker A

change. So, by creating that tracker you make, look, this company just did this, like you were telling me, you'd say, "Víctor, this company released a type of test with a huge discount, I don't know what." Taking advantage of

Speaker A

those kinds of things seems silly, but it's what makes the difference at the end of the year for many reasons, because you can get more discounts, you can get more opportunities, withdraw earlier, rule changes. Now there are several

Speaker A

companies that have changed their rules . Well, I'm like a jackal when I see those changes and I see that, I don't know, it's like I have a mental template where I say: "Perfect, they did this to me, it's perfect for me,

Speaker A

I'm going to go after them because I'm going to go eat up their exams," right?

Speaker A

Because I know those rules suit me and what I do very well. So, I have to be very attentive to those things or vice versa, watch out because they change a rule and complicate my life. Let's see if maybe it's time to stop buying or

Speaker A

you have to take many things into account, and what you said, there are small changes from one company to another that if you're not careful and think it's the same, you probably won't win. They are details. In the end, as

Speaker A

you say, you can't overlook the details . It's true, here the details are key.

Speaker A

I see many people who buy exams and don't even know why, and then when they have them, they ask: "Can I do this?" Yeah, sure, that's not the way. You have to be clear about it beforehand and even backtest everything first,

Speaker A

which is a bit of what I also show, to know if you actually have a chance to withdraw, because sometimes, even if it's very cheap, if your probability of withdrawing—if your expectancy isn't positive, even if that exam costs $ 10,

Speaker A

if in the long run you're going to fail more than you withdraw, you're just throwing money down the drain.

Speaker A

It might be that due to variance you manage to get a big payout, and hey, great, perfect, but normally, if the rules don't add up, you're going to lose in the long run. You have to avoid that. And those firms, besides, if you

Speaker A

—that's what I also tell people, if we stop buying from firms that aren't good, they have to change their rules.

Speaker A

Either they disappear or they change the rules. It has to be. Exactly. So it benefits us all to be with the firms that have the best rules for withdrawing for several reasons.

Speaker A

First, because we'll earn more, and second, because we're forcing others— who might also be serious but have unfavorable rules they hide behind cool marketing that people fall for— to make those changes, like some that have been in the market for a long time

Speaker A

and see that newer ones are stealing their users because they don't have an activation period; anyway, things that for us now result in them releasing models that also sound interesting. So, all of that, for me—I don't know, I

Speaker A

couldn't give you a percentage, but a large part of the key is the rules.

Speaker A

That and the bankroll. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Could you talk a bit about the bankroll? Because we were talking earlier over coffee about all this training, right? About how you wanted to approach it, and what bothers me the most—and I don't know if you

Speaker A

agree—about funding firms or people who talk about them, is that they make you believe you can make a lot of money with very little. I'm not saying it's incorrect, I'm not saying it's false because it's possible, because within

Speaker A

within that world, it Sure, that can happen, but you always talk about the key to your methodology being that you must have a minimum capital to survive long enough until you can actually withdraw, right?

Speaker A

Earlier you mentioned, for example, 20, 30 tests, right? 30 attempts. To give people an idea, would you have an estimate of the minimum someone should start with for your methodology to succeed?

Speaker A

I always aim high. Ideally, for the person doing this, I mean, I have tools and there are ways to actually calculate it, okay? You take a company's rules and you can calculate, more or less, based on the system, if you test it,

Speaker A

how much you need. Roughly, I've calculated that generally, the way I do it, between 20, if you have 30 attempts , that's better, right? But with at least 20 to 25 attempts, you can make it work. That is, a bankroll of $ 3,000

Speaker A

based on the prices firms charge, right ? Which is, on average, well, let's see , on average, how much have the exams cost me this year? Let's see, I have it right here. Well, it hasn't gone.

Speaker A

Ah, no, yes, last year on average it doesn't say, better, average daily loss . No, yes, average 104. There it is.

Speaker A

Ah, this is last year, an average expense, let's say, the average exam cost me 104 €, this year 87. Okay, okay. This is surely because CFDs, the exams are more expensive, so the average from the start of the year

Speaker A

would go up a lot. So, around 90 € is what the exams cost me on average. There's a bit of everything here. There are 50 accounts and 150 accounts which are more expensive. So, well, it changes throughout the year. But hey, if you

Speaker A

know you spend 90 on average per exam, then to have 20 attempts, just calculate it. 800 or 900 would be 10, 2000 would be 20. Put in a bit more in case you get hit, or 2500 to 3000 €

Speaker A

or dollars, I think that's fine. I think that's fine, it can be done. It's like a safety buffer, right? Of course, because it could be that someone starts, and that's how it is, that everything goes well and you start

Speaker A

off winning and you get it on the first try. And I hope it is that way, eh? But it's for safety, to have some wiggle room, in case it doesn't go well and the math doesn't work out as you expect, at

Speaker A

least to survive long enough to be able to withdraw. Sure, I have a video I'm going to upload that I haven't been able to yet, which I think shows this very well, which is doing a Monte Carlo on prop firm accounts, that is,

Speaker A

simulating that we are 3,000 to 10,000 traders doing accounts of X value and such. So of those scenarios, with a 3,000 bankroll, 95%end up winning, okay?

Speaker A

Doing the same with a 1,000 bankroll, 50%lose. So, what happens? That in the end, the important thing about the bankroll is exactly what you say, having the, I mean, 50%win too, if you lose the 50%, then there will be people who win and

Speaker A

will say, "Well, I didn't need that much." Correct. But if you fall into the group that loses, and you didn't lose because what you're doing is wrong , you lost because you couldn't hold on . And that, that is the worst, because

Speaker A

if you are doing something wrong and you lose, hey, well, you have to change it; but you are doing something right and you lose because you didn't have, let's say, enough bank to withstand the streak that will lead you to be able to

Speaker A

then...because this is a wheel: when the bank goes from 2,000 to 3,000, to 4,000, to 5, there comes a time when the risk of ruin is very low.

Speaker A

with those prices. So, the hardest part is at the beginning. So the bankroll is very important because it's what allows you to withstand a very bad streak that is unlikely to happen, but it can happen; a streak of three failed exams

Speaker A

can happen, it's very likely. So, if you can only withstand three, many times you're going to lose that bankroll and you won't be able to continue. If you can withstand 20, well , it can happen, but the probability is

Speaker A

lower. So, there will be more times that you manage to grow the bankroll before losing 20 in a row. That's why it's a bit about trying to minimize the possible scenario where you fall and say, "Wow, I lost, I'm doing it right,

Speaker A

but I just had the bad luck of losing 30 exams." It can happen even with a 3,000 bankroll, but it's unlikely.

Speaker A

The more bankroll in this case, the less likely it is, totally. Totally. And earlier you also mentioned that you didn't trade right at the open. Uh, what is your, let's say, usual trading timing? What would it be? I like to

Speaker A

start trading in the afternoon, maybe because that's what I've done now because of work, right? Starting at 5 or 6, because the market is like it is now, in a range, I look for reversals, which suits me best—getting in here,

Speaker A

getting out there. When you look for reversals, the market is disgusting for most people. Most people don’t want this; they want those brutal, big moves , because they enter looking for a breakout down there—I don’t know, it goes down and they make a ton, or

Speaker A

structure breaks, they look for stuff like that, right? Continuation pullbacks. I don’t look for that; I look for reversals at times when I think the price is already at, you know , a higher point, at a resistance or

Speaker A

support, and I enter there. So, of course, if the market is ranging, at some point it will either break me even or when I enter the other part of the position—we'll see that now. It reverses on me and I get out with a

Speaker A

profit or a small loss. What suits me the least is, I don’t know, looking for a reversal. Let’s see if I’m definitely going to enter on one around here. The thing is, this is on a 15- second chart. Let’s go to a

Speaker A

one-minute chart so it’s clearer. Because, regarding skill, what’s important for you to look at? Let’s see, yeah, it depends. I’ll tell you in a moment. Imagine, I don’t know, that I look for a reversal here, it would happen here, or a reversal here

Speaker A

and it just bleeds out, right? And here I would probably end up losing. These are the scenarios that suit me the worst, when there are a lot of directional moves like that, right? Or I look for a reversal here at this

Speaker A

resistance, and it just blows right past it, and I’d definitely get wiped out there. So, I look for these times, these things where the price is often in those kinds of movements. So, at the open, the chances of it doing things

Speaker A

like it did today—even though it reversed at the end—today at the open it went down, then up, that didn't go poorly; but strong moves like that, followed by a little noise, and then it keeps falling, that happens at the open

Speaker A

quite often. So, I try to avoid that. I try to enter only when it has already made that move, to then take advantage of the noise that’s left over.

Speaker A

That’s a bit like the premise, right? No, when it doesn't want to move, it doesn't want to move; that’s where I like to be.

Speaker A

That works well. I enter on 15 seconds, first because for live streams, for example, what I do is very eye-catching, being able to see many trades because there are many entries here, right? Little turns, and of course, in 5 minutes they give less,

Speaker A

but when I traded from my mobile, I didn't enter on 15 seconds, that's unfeasible. Uh, I have higher timeframes, 15 minutes, that doesn't really matter. Uh, at the end of the day, if your movement is larger, well, you put in fewer contracts. If the

Speaker A

movement is shorter, you look for more contracts. That depends, okay? Because many people, I think, I try to put myself in the shoes of the people who are watching us and are always thinking about the strategy, I mean, the first thing someone asks you

Speaker A

when you do trading is, What is your strategy? Yes. So, uh, the stochastic settings. Exactly. I want to know the indicators, I want to know, uh, where everything, I mean, everything they can know about the strategy they ask because it's what,

Speaker A

it's how we've been educated. It is uh, at the end of the day, I as a trader, for example, everyone watching this has surely spent a large part of their time as traders configuring a strategy, creating it, backtesting it.

Speaker A

How would you make them understand that for you, the strategy is not what's important? Why is your strategy not the important part?

Speaker A

Because my data tells me that a random strategy. my data. Uh, I mean, I don't say it isn't random, but that a random strategy, um, wins. So, if a random strategy wins, I don't need a winning strategy to win. What I need is to have

Speaker A

a strategy that is at least random, that isn't worse, because most have strategies that are worse than random.

Speaker A

Their, their bias doesn't, uh, give, it subtracts. That is to say, it's worse than flipping a coin.

Speaker A

So, that can make you lose when you could have won. So, I at least look for systems that are random, in the sense that...um, let's see, how to put it?

Speaker A

That is, if I know that if I look for a one-to-one with about a 50%hit rate, I'm going to win; a system that might have, let's say, a 56%hit rate, um, is going to win a little more. But if I

Speaker A

achieve that by limiting entries, for example, exactly. And it makes it so that instead of being able to have a, sure, randomly you can bet as much per day as you want , well that, with a system that has edges, maybe you

Speaker A

can only enter three times, that limits the number of evaluations I can perform. If I can do fewer evaluations, I can earn less from a funded account. So it's not about just firing at everything pointlessly. I mean, what I want people to understand,

Speaker A

because when I say this, they always end up telling me the same thing. I mean, I'm not here firing shots like a monkey, like a madman. I have a system that wins based on something that has nothing to do with the exit, or not as

Speaker A

much with the exit. That's how it is. That doesn't mean I sit here and say, " Okay, come on, enter here, 20 micros or 20 minis, and I'll go see what happens." No, I know what I want to achieve with that trade because I

Speaker A

know that's how I'll get a withdrawal. I know what I want, but I don't obsess over saying, "No, the price has to do such and such with this crossover and in this zone with a very tight stop to

Speaker A

get a 1 to 20 ratio." Well, no, if I'm looking for streaks, I have to look for systems that, in principle, have a high win rate. For them to have a high win rate, they must have an inverse ratio.

Speaker A

So I look for these types of systems, and well, there are several things like that, right? The entry doesn't matter as much because I don't know if everyone knows it, but if you enter with a stop at a distance equal to the

Speaker A

TP, you will never have streaks. Well, let's never be too categorical, right? But normally you won't find a system that wins 90%of the time. If you're very, very good, you'll get one that wins 60% or 58%, and with that, you'll make a

Speaker A

fortune, you know? So, if you think you want to win 90%of the time while doing a funded account, you're mistaken. So, for me, the key, something I would like to highlight in case you think like I do, is the number of trades you decide

Speaker A

on. Meaning that if you build a system, a strategy, it's most likely that you'll have to be a sniper, that you can't enter at any time, but rather you have to be in front of the screen.

Speaker A

You'll have to wait for the right moment, you have to do a very exhaustive analysis, and that will give you X number of trades a day, maybe two a day. You won't get as many opportunities as you surely could if

Speaker A

you do it randomly; that is, since you eliminate the strategy factor on a technical level, I mean, you are greatly increasing the window of opportunity to add new ones. If you count that randomly you have a 50/50 and with the other you have a 57 or 58,

Speaker A

that 8%does not compensate for reducing the number of trades you make so much. That is, you know it's better that way.

Speaker A

Totally. In the end, if you're flipping a coin and every time you get heads you're paid € 1.10 and when it's tails you're paid € 1, would you rather flip a coin once a day or flip it a million times? Even if they tell

Speaker A

you that if you do it once when the moon is waxing, such and such, you might possibly get heads more often , but then you'll earn 20 cents more one day, but if I flip it a million times, I'll earn much more than you do.

Speaker A

That’s why you need that bankroll, you pay more and more. That's why you have so many exams, because since you make many trades, you lose many of them . It's pure arithmetic, right? The more you do, the more risk you have because

Speaker A

there's a higher probability it goes against you. But there is also another part, which is what you win. That is, since you have a large volume of tests, what you risk is more than normal, but also when you withdraw, it's more than

Speaker A

normal as well, and it brings you balance. What I have is an annual bankroll that I allocate to this. So, I'm not afraid to buy exams when I have to, when there are better prices, when I should do it.

Speaker A

Most people, what they do is perhaps allocate some money per month or something like that. So, if they've lost many accounts that month, they stop. Maybe on the 10th day they already stop. Geez, but maybe from the 10th to the 20th you were going to make

Speaker A

a killing, but now you have to stop. The next month you start again on the first, you buy the exams, you fail them ; by the end of the year they've bought 20 or 30 tests, which is much fewer

Speaker A

than I've bought, but they've lost because they couldn't follow through with their system. They are always holding back because they are afraid of losing. I have money that I know is meant to be lost—which in principle I won't lose—but I know it's earmarked

Speaker A

for this, and that allows me, if I fail , to be able to buy another one the same day or the next day. No, I don't have to wait to save up every month to get this, no. This is a business, it

Speaker A

has this annual cost, I'm going to dedicate it to this. If I lose it, I accept it because in trading we know you can lose, but I've built or calculated everything to try to minimize that risk, because obviously,

Speaker A

if I put in 5,000 or whatever and I don't have anything to back it up so I don't lose it right away, then it doesn't make sense.

Speaker A

So that's a bit of what it's like, it's like suppliers in the end, like imagine you have a business where you pay suppliers, but you haven't calculated well how much money you need for suppliers that year.

Speaker A

Suddenly, the day you have many clients , many diners, you don't have enough material.

Speaker A

Correct. You have to close the restaurant, you say, "Gosh, exactly, exactly. Totally, totally super interesting." And at an operational level, if we remove the strategy factor, and, as you rightly say, right? You use indicators or whatever or structure to

Speaker A

look for those reversals with the goal of having high ratios, right? So, do you think this type of trading can also be carried out in a real account or does it only make sense here. Well, I think there are people who win in so

Speaker A

many ways that I wouldn't dare to say that you can't win like that, because in the end, if you manage to risk 100 to win 10 and your success rate instead of being 90, which is random, you win 95, you also make money

Speaker A

. So surely you can also win with reverse ones. It will also be mentally difficult. I don't know, I don't dare to say that you can't win one way or another because I've seen people win in so many ways

Speaker A

and also lose in so many ways. So, I don't know. What I try to do is look for the way that makes the most sense for me in funding and I found that one.

Speaker A

Again, I've seen people win in Funding in other ways. So, they do it their own way, even doing stop-hunting and such, they'll win too. The thing is, you have to look at how much they've managed to withdraw annually, if they are

Speaker A

consistent, and, well, for me, reverse ratios generally work well, especially in evaluations, because evaluations— that's something I truly believe is there...no, I couldn't agree with anyone who tells me evaluations should be taken slowly, because evaluation is useless; you can't make money with that

Speaker A

. I think that part has to be done quickly, and I think that there I couldn't argue with someone who tells me otherwise because I wouldn't agree.

Speaker A

Sure, sure. The approach once you are live, that’s where I might agree with different approaches. Maybe going slower, going faster. I don't like going slow because companies, just like they are paying you this year, might not the next, right? And I know people

Speaker A

who have been growing an account and had 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 there to withdraw, requested a withdrawal, and didn't get paid. So, why would you put in that effort for so long growing an account, or 20 accounts? Others told me

Speaker A

, I don't know, I assume it's true, I don't know, that they had 20 accounts where they had, I don't know, 20,000 in each to withdraw. It's absurd, and in my head, then they requested a withdrawal, didn't get paid, and I

Speaker A

thought, or I don't know, I don't know when that person thought about making a —why would you want to make a 200,000 withdrawal? I just don't understand it.

Speaker A

I prefer, my approach is to make many small withdrawals to keep taking money out. It’s like limiting the risk of them not paying me, because if I request a 50,000 withdrawal, that company will say, "Let's see, what methods do I have to avoid spending

Speaker A

this 50,000 on this guy?" And they’ll think about it. The red flags are going to go off everywhere.

Speaker A

If I request 1,000, 2,000, 3,000. Look, when it starts adding up, they'll say, "Wait, this guy, let's see what we do with him.""But I already have 40,000 in my pocket." That is my approach.

Speaker A

It's like flying under the radar, as we said before, right? You want to make some money, but not bother these kinds of companies too much, because once they detect you and your profile doesn't fit their account, surely...

Speaker A

I want to be their lesser evil. Sure, sure. I want to be the guy—because statistically there has to be one—who takes money from them, but not the guy who’s going to sink them. I don’t want to be someone who suddenly says, "

Speaker A

Come on, there's a million euros here, pay it to me." Because they have a thousand mechanisms to not pay me. I want to be the annoying fly buzzing around, taking a bit here and there. I am the statistic that eats at them;

Speaker A

they win, but they lose a small percentage. Exactly. That exists, and this guy is one of them. Well, it's fine, it's there and you don't bother them. When you start bothering them, that's when things...but......not suddenly appearing there like, "Damn, this guy

Speaker A

wants a million, what did he do?" What is this? That draws a lot of attention, I think.

Speaker A

Yes, yes, yes, I agree. And now, what would you be looking for, for example, in the case of...

Speaker A

a short? Probably. Okay. Why? Why are you thinking about shorts? Because, first, this might just be an analysis—it doesn't have to be right—but I see this is on a 15- second chart, right? Uh, but I see the Nasdaq has been up for a long time, uh,

Speaker A

I don't know, it has to fall around here, round number, 700, anyway, I don't know, I like shorts better, okay? But there was no explanation, and maybe this keeps going up. So on the 15 -second chart, which is where we're

Speaker A

going to do it today, it's been going up for a while, it's getting there. Now I’ll look for a short, almost certainly. If I can, I'll enter, let's see. Right, is this the account? Hold on, uh. Let’s see, you can't mix up

Speaker A

the accounts, right? This one, this is the one I want , 45. 45. Okay. Uh, minis, let’s go to micros just in case. If you do it, if you aren't fast, it ends, it turns, but well, now maybe we should wait a little bit

Speaker A

longer. Let's see, right there. Come on , let's get in. So, anyway, I’m looking for 150 on this account, a little before the round number there, and let's see if it turns. If not, I have another opportunity at 700 to

Speaker A

throw in another three, four micros and see if it turns. I mean, sure, the key here is that many people are probably wondering how you chose your risk management to do this.

Speaker A

It's always thought out in more or less the same way. I mean, how do you decide ? I'll enter three micros, uh, five micros, one mini. How do you do it in live accounts? Honestly, unless it's a big account where I have to make

Speaker A

9,000, I go with micros. In the ones where I have to make 9,000, I normally go with minis, but especially once I already have more of a cushion. Here I can only lose 2,000, uh, with normal volatility. I

Speaker A

don't know if it's very volatile today or not, uh, but well, I always err on the side of entering with less for the first position to see how things are.

Speaker A

So, entering with two micros is standard for me. Normally in a live account with a 2,000 drawdown, I just do that, as I always look for several zones to enter. I mean, for me, it could fall now and I'd win 120. Perfect

Speaker A

. But it could also go that way, and I could add a little bit more here. If I'm already in with five or six, well, that's fine. I won't enter with more than 10, no.

Speaker A

And do you always exit at the target, or are there times when you manage at break even or something similar?

Speaker A

No, no. I don't have the oscillator I use turned on right now. Normally, the oscillator would be, okay, we don't see it, but it's surely overextended.

Speaker A

I mean, I'd bet anything on it. Let's see, yeah, people ask about the configurations.

Speaker A

Yeah, look, I'll put it on so they can see it, because they always ask me, but this doesn't matter either, see? It's overextended. So, if the price doesn't reach here now, but it turns around here or here, then I'd close,

Speaker A

okay? I tend to do that because, let's say, the turn I was looking for has already happened, even if it's in the negative and hasn't reached the target, but well, sometimes I'm not at the screen and it hits the target, and

Speaker A

that's what I look for, a small...it's falling. And how many hours, for example, a day do you think for a business model? How many hours a day do you think you have to dedicate to get the maximum return?

Speaker A

No, I don't know. Maximum return, I don't know. The hours I dedicate, of course, I don't sit down until now. I don't sit down to trade for four or five hours straight. I wait for the afternoon in shifts, right? Well, at 5

Speaker A

o'clock I was picking up the kids from school, I don't know. Well, I drop them off at extracurriculars and they're there, I have to wait an hour for them to get out. In that hour, I look for opportunities, I jump in, maybe I make

Speaker A

two, three positions, depending on the day, or four in different accounts. Maybe I'll have to take another one somewhere else or home to shower, so I'll put in one more then. Busy all afternoon, 4 or 5 hours for sure, but

Speaker A

I'm not sitting 4 or 5 hours looking at the screen; instead, I keep an eye on entries. I don't even have alerts telling me; I just look and say, "Okay, I like this, I'm going in." Or sometimes, like you said, if I have

Speaker A

many accounts and only have 15 and I've only traded two, I think, "Oh, I better start jumping into others a bit more recklessly." No, no, the position is right there.

Speaker A

It's not...I don't dedicate a specific amount of time, but you do have to dedicate time because, above all, you have to analyze companies beforehand, right? But It's...Yes, look, we won.

Speaker A

Perfect. I mean, and now that you've won, for example, on this profit, does it mean you've reached your daily goal or do you have to keep going?

Speaker A

No, no, I'd still be short of the daily goal here; I'd need about 50, which is 32 more or less. Today, my goal, surely if I had more, would be to reach 50, 2000; that is, the daily goal is 150

Speaker A

for it to be a winning day, but if I have time, some days I dedicate time to build up the cushion because I don't do it just because, I do it because statistically it's better.

Speaker A

According to my calculations. Because in the end, if I only expose myself to losing the account one day, it's better than if I expose myself five times. So, if one day I go more aggressive looking for more reversals,

Speaker A

right? For example, I would like a reversal upwards, but well, we said shorts. I'm going to wait. So, um, that's it, I make several positions, in a little while I get the 52,000 and then I stop, and the next day I only

Speaker A

have to make a 150 trade, okay? To get a withdrawal, and that would be it.

Speaker A

And is that common? I mean, usually what you do is try to reach the cushion and, well, that is something I always tend to do, it depends on the company, or the account; it's one cushion or another.

Speaker A

And you always do it through micro-trades in the sense that you fragment the total into different ones and don't let it run too much. If you make me Sometimes I let it run a lot when, for example, if I'm on a higher timeframe,

Speaker A

instead of entering with, well, entering with the same, two or three micros, but I leave like two or three pending positions in two or three zones and the target is the zone that more or less gives me, or gives me this target,

Speaker A

or gives me 700 at once and I let it run more. It depends a bit. It's just that it's not always the same. It’s like, look, for example, I've traded this account for several days and I haven't built the cushion yet because

Speaker A

these days I've been very busy with all this mess I've had. So, I've simply tried to aim for a winning day. So, it depends. I know I have several goals.

Speaker A

Adding up 10 winners so they can withdraw, that yes, to pay, to request the payout, I have to do that. And then the cushion. Generally, this type of company, there are others that don't, but this one does. So, since I have to

Speaker A

do that, I have to, for me it's more optimal to build the cushion first, okay? Well, before I didn't do it like that, but since I saw you doing that and other people, I've changed, I also learn from others, right? Eh, it's a

Speaker A

bit better because you expose yourself less and then once you have it, it's just about adding 10. So, e I don't know what you're answering.

Speaker A

Yes, I'm going to tell you that I think of it as time efficiency, which is a bit more of an explanation of your idea . Okay. The issue of getting the cushion quickly, sure, simply to say, look, I'm more efficient

Speaker A

, if I'm going to blow this account sooner or later, better to do it quickly and have more opportunities, and it's a matter of efficiency.

Speaker A

Above all, sometimes there are three days where you know there's going to be a 50%discount. Wow, well on those days, the evaluations, I buy all I can because you buy, you fail, you buy until you get them funded

Speaker A

; and then, also, if they are funded, since maybe the next day there is still a discount, it pays off to go all in with that one to build the cushion and, if you lose it, buy another one with a

Speaker A

discount, which might be a day or two, than losing it three days later when there is no discount. So all those things. Uh, a short one there now too, which you've seen now that it has extended and it has risen more or less to where the

Speaker A

other one was. It is true that this hasn't gone up that much yet. But anyway, we’re repeating more or less the same move looking for the same thing.

Speaker A

Many people will be asking, where is your stop loss? There is no stop loss, no matter how much it goes up. The stop loss is basically a stop per signal, let’s say. When this turns, well, right now it still has to get there

Speaker A

first and then turn, but if it gets there and turns, and if it's a negative , well, I'll lose on the trade. But only after completing the position, because right now for me the position isn’t complete; I want to complete it

Speaker A

if it gets there. So, why am I entering early here? Because, damn, this was very aggressive here. I can do the same thing again.

Speaker A

Maybe not. I honestly don’t know. I entered here and won quickly. It might look like I’m a divine wizard. I don’t know what’s going to happen.

Speaker A

It could happen, or maybe not. And here , it’s the same thing. Maybe it goes up now and I add the other one here, and when it turns, I’ll exit in profit or loss and that’s it. If it

Speaker A

keeps going up and never turns, that doesn't usually happen. But well, sometimes, imagine there’s news, which—by the way, one thing I haven’t done—look, check for news.

Speaker A

That is an important thing, checking if there is any, that’s part of the rules, right? If, let’s see, if there is news today, we shouldn’t be trading, because many firms kick you out for news or they cancel your position, so if you

Speaker A

win, they take your profit, and if you lose, you keep the loss no matter what.

Speaker A

I mean, they cancel your position, if you win, but if you lose, they don't cancel it. In other words, the loss stays there. So it’s not worth trading because no matter what happens, if you win you lose, and if you lose

Speaker A

you lose. So here, at this specific firm that we are trading with now, the calendar—today is Monday, not Tuesday — nothing, there’s no news, so nothing happens. If there were news, it would say, if any yesterday, yesterday was a

Speaker A

holiday, I don't know, it would say this is......strictly... Yes, so you wouldn't trade news; it's not because you're like other traders in a real account fearing volatility, but rather......fear, exactly......due to the firm's risk, right?

Speaker A

Right, it's because the company won't let me keep that profit, so it's useless to me. It just complicates my life because if I lose, which I can, I'm stuck with the loss, and if I win, I don't get to keep it. It’s a

Speaker A

lose-lose; I don’t want to be there. That's why. So, you always have to check the news beforehand. There’s usually news sometimes at 4, sometimes a bit before the opening at 2:30, and sometimes at 8. So, you check if there

Speaker A

is any, and you try to stay out of those windows. And that’s it. During the evaluation, it usually doesn't matter; nothing happens to you.

Speaker A

I mean, in the first phases, they don't care because they aren't losing anything, but when you reach the payout phase, since you can earn from a big market move, they don't limit you there right?

Speaker A

Yes, they do limit you. I also wanted to ask, for the sake of numbers, because I think we're getting an idea of the journey for anyone who wants to get into prop trading, at least the way you do it, which I think is interesting

Speaker A

. We’ve talked about risk, we’ve talked about the methodology of how to do it and the scalability, because I’ve asked you this many times, we’ve seen you’re making withdrawals, you’re earning between 40 and 50,000 a year, right? More or

Speaker A

less. Do you think that’s scalable? In other words, Yes, I’m not at my maximum right now.

Speaker A

In fact, I’ve been very conservative these years, as I’ve said, and I’m not doing everything I could to earn more. There are people earning more, and I could earn more. There is a ceiling, obviously; once you reach certain amounts, companies will limit

Speaker A

you, move you to live accounts, as we said, or the worse ones might just stop paying you. So, obviously, you...I don't think it's possible, even though people show it on social media, to withdraw 200, 300, or 400,000 from one

Speaker A

company a month or things like that; I don't think that's real from my point of view. But there are many companies, so you can diversify across many; you can, for example, use trade copiers, and you can even automate certain

Speaker A

things. I mean, you have to find a way; I think my obsession these last few months, while juggling work and this at the same time, was optimizing to scale more, because I noticed I was starting to lose when I should have been gaining

Speaker A

more, since I was just scraping by. So yes, it is possible to scale. The way I’ve decided to do it now is by buying larger accounts with more drawdown. Look at how it’s going up.

Speaker A

And that is one way to scale. At the end of the day, you can have more firms with more drawdown, you have a better chance for larger withdrawals, it's about not going overboard. And another way is by copying; that is, having

Speaker A

smaller accounts across many firms and copying them all, trying to find a way to dilute the risk, anyway, but they set limits, right? Each of the firms limits the number of accounts you can have, which is more or less

Speaker A

it depends. For example, in these, you can have—they don’t limit by accounts, they limit by maximum capital , meaning the sum of all accounts can't exceed 300,000. So, you can have two of 150 or five of, no, six of 50. There

Speaker A

are others that tell you only five accounts regardless of the size. Topstep, for example, allows either five of 50,000 or five of 150,000, okay?

Speaker A

So it depends on the firm, they have different rules, but they all do it now . For example, Profit, which I mentioned earlier limited me, I asked them, and they said, "You can have as many accounts as you are able to handle

Speaker A

." Wow, really? And I managed to have about 20 or so, 22. Then they said, "Well, that’s enough," and then later they said, a maximum of three. Okay, so right now I think all the ones I manage limit you on the

Speaker A

maximum number of accounts. The interesting thing is to reach that maximum and be in several, and that way, you could potentially withdraw much more than what I currently withdraw, but there is a ceiling; I don’t know where it is, I

Speaker A

haven't reached it, but I will. I mean, clearly, the way to scale to the maximum would be to have the largest accounts and also the maximum number permitted, right? I understand. And doing that simultaneously. So, what you would do is execute the trade and then

Speaker A

use a trade copier to broadcast it to all the others. That’s a simple way to do it, but I’ve never liked that because variance can mean that on a day you’re meant to lose, you lose on all of them.

Speaker A

Right. So I try to avoid that because I’ve been in those scenarios, even when not using a copier, where you start off, lose one, and then lose them all.

Speaker A

Because I look for reversals. If the Nasdaq doesn't want to reverse that day , which happens sometimes, you end up losing everything you do that day. So, that’s a feeling I don’t like. So, for a few months now—it’s been a

Speaker A

while since it happened to me—I’ve been trying to avoid that. So, a way to avoid that would be by copying, but not all of them, right? You place a trade and it copies, maybe on 30%of your portfolio of accounts, and on the next

Speaker A

one, a different 30%that doesn't have to be the same. It can be some, but not others. That’s one way. Another is with algorithmic systems that decide for themselves which block to choose, or by copying all of them but with

Speaker A

different lot sizes. That could also work. So, when you lose, maybe you lose on two or three, but you don't lose the whole account on the others. When you win, you win a lot on some, less on others. Anyway, there are various ways.

Speaker A

I’m not doing it that way right now. I would like to go down that path. In fact, I built a copier a few months ago that worked like that, but well, it’s not finished, and I have to do

Speaker A

something with that, but right now, for the sake of time and simplicity, I’ve decided to go with fewer but larger ones.

Speaker A

And with that, I’ve set a goal for myself that I think is achievable: to withdraw between 10,000 and 15,000 a month; that’s what I’m aiming for from now on. I don’t know how much I’ve made this month already, but

Speaker A

I’d be halfway there. Okay? So that’s it; obviously, it won’t be like that every month, but on average, I would aim for well, with between five and 10 accounts with 4,000 or 5,000 drawdown—they could be 150k or 200k, it doesn’t

Speaker A

matter, that’s what’s important. I think that could be achieved. That’s great. So, let's say a reasonable goal of 15-20 a month, basically two or three withdrawals.

Speaker A

Right, so it’s not a ceiling, but rather something plausible within the accounts you are managing.

Speaker A

Yes, that’s right. More and more firms. Now there are several prop firms moving to futures. I mean, I think there are opportunities to be in more that are serious and that allow you to withdraw quite a bit more in total than

Speaker A

what I’ve withdrawn so far. And then, well obviously, since some move you to Live, we'll have to see what’s worth doing there. Maybe it’s worth going calmer on that account and focusing, and, I don’t know, a withdrawal of maybe 1,000 a

Speaker A

month could be interesting. Meaning: look, well, anyway, we’d have to see; but it is true that obviously we won’t be able to withdraw half a million from every company. I think that’s unrealistic to think.

Speaker A

And it’s not my goal. Right. Right. Okay. And also something that comes to mind is the topic you’ve mentioned many times, that what’s important is the drawdown.

Speaker A

Yes. This happens because in months like mine—but I want to bring this up —many people, when they get into funding, obsess over or set the capital to be managed as the goal, right?

Speaker A

Saying, look, I manage 2 million, a million. Why do you think that doesn't make sense in your case, at least?

Speaker A

No, because it’s a lie. You don't manage—first, you don't manage money because they are demo accounts, and second, what you actually manage is the maximum drawdown you can lose. And if you have, let's say, large accounts with 5,000 drawdown, well, if you have

Speaker A

1 million, and 200,000 times 5 is a million, then 5 times 5, you're managing 25,000, which isn't bad. Mind you, that's a lot, and it seems like a lot of money to me, since I have a, uh, poor mentality, or whatever, but $

Speaker A

25,000 or euros is quite a lot to manage and that is what you are actually handling, let's say, in demo.

Speaker A

Furthermore, to be able to generate profits with systems of this style, which are aggressive, which are symmetric risk, with 25,000 you can generate much more than what you could earn with a real capital of 25,000.

Speaker A

That, that’s just how it is. You can generate quite a bit of money with that , but you don't manage a million. Uh, whether that’s for marketing or because it looks very good, right? For the ego or because it feels better that way.

Speaker A

But I’ve also put that in my videos sometimes, honestly, because in the end it’s true that it catches attention, but I’m saying it now and I always say it, right? Clickbait, well, okay, in the end you have to resort to that

Speaker A

sometimes on YouTube, but the reality is what it is. At the end of the day, it doesn't sound the same to say I manage 25,000 as it does to say I manage 2 million, or Right, it's like, wow, man, that load

Speaker A

is something else. The reality is that when you pass a phase, or a funding challenge, you aren't really managing those 50, 100, or 150,000. It’s the drawdown. The drawdown is what matters and what you handle well; that is the

Speaker A

key, knowing how to manage that drawdown. Do you know what happens? When I've been doing what you do, I’ve realized that’s the key. I mean, when you realize what drawdown rules they set for you—for example, I remember once you told me, "Hey, buy

Speaker A

challenges today from this firm because they removed the daily drawdown.""Yes, the daily limit." Exactly.

Speaker A

That seems like a small thing that someone might not even notice, but it makes a huge difference.

Speaker A

Oh, absolutely. Of course, because you go from having half the risk you can take on a trade to having double, and in terms of scalability, that’s massive. In a single move, you’re doubling the profit and the risk you can assume. And

Speaker A

these are little details that seem minor, but when you aren't focused on the drawdown and instead think about the big numbers or how much you manage, you don't notice these things that actually define your success.

Speaker A

If you’re thinking about making 1%on your account, let's say you have a 100,000 account, if you just make 1%a month, Yeah.

Speaker A

And you say that's 1,000, right? Yes, yes, yes, yes. Uh, that’s basically a salary. Okay, okay, 100,000. But what is your drawdown? You have 3,000. 3,000, that 1 %is absolute peanuts. So, you really have to know, it’s important to know

Speaker A

what you’re doing; meaning, your expectations have to be linked to reality. If you link them to something unreal, then what you’re looking for is likely unreal and you won't achieve it. If you have realistic expectations and you know what you’re doing, so

Speaker A

you don't get fooled or fall into traps , it’ll be easier to reach your goals . They might be bigger or smaller, but at least you aren't falling for the silly nonsense they sell out there.

Speaker A

Totally. Look, look. Watch out, because this is the zone where we want to enter the trade.

Speaker A

All right, let's go. So, what you've done here is, uh, averaged the position, right? It's yes, we've completed it there. Now I wouldn't add much more. We should look for a full exit around here. Whoa, six.

Speaker A

It looks small, but well, I'm basically placing six contracts here, which is what I have in the position, exiting at this low. Let's see if it makes that little turn there. This is overextended . Anyway, let's see when it turns;

Speaker A

we'll exit positive, negative, or whatever, it's fine, we just have to wait. Totally, totally. And speaking of that, I also wanted to tell you that I've seen—I don't know if you've noticed, I don't know if you look much at

Speaker A

trading social media and stuff like that, less than a while ago. Yeah, okay, better. Uh, but I have noticed, uh, because I'm usually keeping up with what people are doing, etc., right?

Speaker A

That many people who were doing funding in CFDs and Forex are moving to futures . Yes, yes, that is happening, huh? And I've heard what they say, the reasons and such, and in a way I feel like they are reaching similar

Speaker A

conclusions. Oh, yeah, I hadn't noticed that. I think, I think maybe I'm jumping the gun, but I see that they've seen something there, whether it's the price of futures funding tests, the rules they set, etc., that seems to be

Speaker A

drawing more attention than CFDs. Uh, do you think that futures is really where more money is made in terms of funding? I mean, do you think, for example, someone in CFDs can manage to earn as much as you do in futures

Speaker A

funding? Yes, I think they can. I, I, I, let's see, yes, I think so.

Speaker A

The only thing is that in CFDs, at least, as I said, I'm very disconnected now, uh, surely it's not like that right now, but when I left there were fewer options or fewer serious companies to withdraw from. There were

Speaker A

many you had to be very careful with, and well, luckily for me maybe I always managed to withdraw with one and such, but my feeling when I moved to futures is that here, I don't know, there were companies that had been around longer,

Speaker A

more serious ones, although there's everything. So one of the reasons I moved was because of that. So the withdrawal potential is big in both. I think there are serious companies too, right? Trading Pit, FTMO, those are companies that have been around for a

Speaker A

long time. Funding Pips as well. But I also heard they were going to open futures, and I'm waiting for them to do it so I can join. I mean, I know that company is top-tier, so when they open

Speaker A

futures, I'll join them immediately. Just like I did with Ticks, I mean, when you see a company with a track record, sure, look, they could stop paying if they're doing poorly, but they won't do it because they don't have the money.

Speaker A

There are many that were always scams, just companies set up by one guy to sell, and when it's time to pay, they make excuses, maybe paying you in three months—that's not professional.

Speaker A

Absolutely. But there are companies that have been around a long time, where the people who work there are experienced and know what they're doing . And if they don't pay, maybe it's because they're struggling, have to close, or I don't know, or they find

Speaker A

some way to pay you less because it's a problem for them. But generally, I haven't had bad experiences aside from the one I mentioned. So, do they have withdrawal potential in CFDs? I think so. The thing is, I don't know, it's

Speaker A

not like there's a reason, because symmetric risk can be done too, meaning what I do can be done in CFDs if you wanted to. I don't know, honestly, I can't tell you why they are switching over there.

Speaker A

No, I prefer futures for the reason I told you, but if that were to end, if they cut my wings, let's say, and futures were gone, I would try CFDs again because I believe you can earn just the same. It

Speaker A

is true that the exams are more expensive. That's what I was going to say.

Speaker A

And well, making the withdrawals I make here, maybe you'd invest in exams. I mean, paying for $ 100k accounts there again is deceptive because a $ 100k CFD account can't be compared to a $ 100k futures account, because in CFDs you

Speaker A

have a $ 10k trailing drawdown and it's static too. In futures, you have $ 3,000 or $ 3,500 , so it's more.

Speaker A

There are pros and cons, it's like you're comparing. So it is true that for CFDs, maybe it's two phases, and you have to make 10%and then 5%and I don't know what else. It's true that if you get funded later, they refund

Speaker A

the fees, right? I mean, there are so many things—well , mind you, at least when I used to do it, it wasn't the same, right?

Speaker A

So, uh there are things and then there are things. I think it would be difficult for me to focus on both at the same time because everything is so different. So I would lose my way, I would make many

Speaker A

mistakes. That's why I prefer to focus on this, which is going well for me now , they don't give me any trouble, and I see a lot of potential. If that were to end, well, I would look for other

Speaker A

options. Skill. It is what it is. That's it. David, what I've seen with CFDs is that , no, many people have told me that when you've come to the channel and shown what you were doing, they don't let you execute the strategy like you

Speaker A

do, they take it more as gambling. Yes, that's also true. Sure. So, uh, here in futures, in the evaluation phase, they let you risk the entire drawdown, which is a bit of what you do, while over there they don't let

Speaker A

you do that. It seems like you... not anymore, so if you did allow it, it seems they have modified the rules and don't let you risk everything on one trade, because they identify that as gambling and therefore you can't

Speaker A

execute what you do so quickly. You could do the trading, but not with the same risk you use, and therefore the scalability is also lower, but if you consider that it also gives you more draw...

Speaker A

Sure, the thing is you can look at it that way, you know? We would have to see what their rules are like, because as I said, it’s been a long time since I looked at them and saw how they handle that. If it's a

Speaker A

generic rule, then it's already difficult. If they set a maximum you can risk per day of that drawdown and you comply with it and it fits, I mean, it can be done.

Speaker A

If they simply tell you (some used to do it, I don't know now) that, well, different techniques they might consider gambling will be penalized, then of course, you're toast. But I don't know exactly what you can do in

Speaker A

futures; at least the good thing I'm seeing is that they have some rules and , if you follow them, in principle, there's no problem. These gambling stories aren't what I'm trading, because really, damn, if they give you a 2,000 drawdown and you have to make

Speaker A

2,500, let's see what you do, you risk 50 so that...So I think they take that into account. So they are cheaper, anyway, the $ 2,000 for a 50k account, which is 3% or 4% no, more or less no

Speaker A

it's very little that they give you a 5%6% a six 50,000, no, ah, I mean, that would be five, 10 would be five, five would be the 500 yeah, well, four, no no, nothing else 4%is really too little for, I don't

Speaker A

know, a trade where they let you risk 10%. Well, hey, if you risk 10%of your account on a trade, that's gambling, you could say, but well, you also have the daily risk limit where they only let you lose 5%.

Speaker A

Anyway, when I used to do it, I'd risk 4%anyway because if you risk 5%and fight it, they'll take the whole account, at least then. So I used to risk the same as now, around 4%, and then they wouldn't give me any problems

Speaker A

. Maybe now you say they've changed, but they would have to say, okay, well, not four, but risk two. Well, then I would risk two.

Speaker A

Because the key is what you're saying, right? If you had to change, you'd be focusing on seeing what else they set as their limits, where you can play, what is it that people aren't doing.

Speaker A

I wouldn't try to do the same thing as now there because I know I wouldn't win , so I'd have to go back there to see what these people are doing now. I would analyze it and see what average

Speaker A

profitability I can have with those rules. If it turns out positive and it's worth it to me, I would try it. If not, then well, I'd have to look for other firms. Exactly.

Speaker A

Speaking of profitability earlier, could you say what profitability you expect, for example, annually, because in trading that gets brought up a lot too, right? What average profitability does a trader make? Here at Funded, have you thought about calculating it

Speaker A

in some way? I don't know if the tracker lets you Yes, I have an annual ROI there that is close to 200%. Here it is. This is the ROI for this year. I mean, if I, it's a bit double what I invest in exams, well

Speaker A

, I make almost double. Have you ever thought about it like that, that many people wouldn't believe this, I mean, in the end, profitability , look, in 2 years it's around that, 200% almost, yes. So you've grown your

Speaker A

capital by 200%trading like that, doing that type of trading. It's actually more, if you think about it, I started the year with a $ 500 bankroll and ended 2024 at 40,000. Sure, it’s wild, but it’s not unrealistic because, in

Speaker A

the end, you do end up spending more on exams than what you had, right? It’s just that it keeps growing. No, I wouldn’t know how to calculate it well. If you calculate it based on what I put in from my own pocket versus what

Speaker A

I ended up withdrawing, it is wild. If you calculate it based on what you’ve been putting in versus what you take out, right? If I put in one euro and take out two, that’s a much more sensible mindset,

Speaker A

which is what I apply here, because this year, of course, if you do that calculation and say, "Okay, last year I put in 500 and took out 40,000, this year I put in 10,000, what should I take out?", right? In the end, you were

Speaker A

taking out the same. "Meaning, I understand. Profitability doesn't depend on what you put in, but on what you spend.

Speaker A

Sure, sure, basically. Well, but in any case, with what you spend, it's 200%. Correct. What you have to do here is spend more. Sure. Yes, yes, totally, absolutely totally.

Speaker A

If I spend more, in theory, I should earn more. It’s brutal, especially so that you can get an idea, so that people can get an idea—and I’ll try to do this with every trader I talk to —to see what the business environment

Speaker A

is, in which trading environment you can earn more in terms of profitability , because totals are one thing and the profitability you achieve with what you spend is another.

Speaker A

than with what you invest, right? And I find it very interesting to see this, that 200%are very high numbers for a trading account, which would imply that in most cases, in a traditional trading account, you doing 200%...There are

Speaker A

places where it is, as we were saying, small caps. Yes, of course. Yes, yes, but in most markets, it’s hard to find people who will make you 200% annually right now, right? We’ll see over the years if maybe there comes a

Speaker A

point where you hit a ceiling, right? And you say," Damn, I’m not growing anymore and such. "Sure, I hope to keep growing this year and for it to be quite a bit more, but the numbers, well , we’ll see as we go. Well, maybe at

Speaker A

some point they are so high that I get scared and don't post them, but in principle, in principle, they are still normal numbers, right? No, excellent, excellent. Sorry, I was saying, how’s the trade going, okay? It look, it turned and we didn't get out.

Speaker A

Well, it’s fine, let’s see the next pull because I should have exited around here at BXB, more or less.

Speaker A

People watching this, for example, seeing how you improvise, they should also consider that I'm here, so I'm distracting you, but it’s also part of the magic of what you do, because I was just about to ask you about this.

Speaker A

We’re seeing that now, for example, you have to be flexible on one side, you adapt. Um, do you think this is honestly the easiest way, I mean, to make money in trading?

Speaker A

If doing this with funded accounts is the easiest way to earn in trading in general, is that what you mean? Oof, I don't know. For me it is, because it’s the only one I know that has worked for me. I understand that

Speaker A

everyone has their own way and will adapt to it. I’ve adapted it this way and for me, well, it’s not that it’s easy because nothing is easy, but it’s the one I feel most comfortable with. So, obviously, if I

Speaker A

had to look for a system with an edge, being very, well, that, taking all the losses I can within a certain schedule, I couldn't do it, it would be very uncomfortable because my life wouldn't allow it right now. So, for me it

Speaker A

wouldn't be simple. On the other hand, for someone else, maybe this would be easier than being here watching how you're losing, I don't know, 2000, 2000 every time you enter, or I don't know, or losing three or four exams in a row

Speaker A

and that demotivates you. It doesn't affect me. So, for me it is simple in that sense. It’s it’s it’s comfortable rather than simple.

Speaker A

You know? If you had to—I understand that you say it’s what you know, right? What you’ve done and therefore you weigh it that way, but knowing the market in general, the markets or other people you’ve spoken to, if you had

Speaker A

to start over, would you start with this? Yes, yes, I would start with this. Yes.

Speaker A

The two things I’ve tried lately, one is small caps, I also took a course and this, of course, is the same. HCAP adapts to my daily life because of the hours, right? Which, in principle, for the methodology I studied, you need,

Speaker A

right? Being there analyzing in the pre-market, looking at volumes, in short, what's active that day; you have to do a scan for several hours, I mean, it's work that it doesn't matter, I wouldn't mind doing it, but I don't

Speaker A

have the time perhaps at the right schedule because it has to be done at a specific time. So, for me that is difficult, difficult, right? Not that it's technically difficult, which it also is, but difficult operationally in the day because my day doesn't allow it

Speaker A

. This is easier because at any moment during the day there are many hours open. The market, well, when I wake up it's already open and at 9 10:15 I think it closes. I have plenty of room there to trade almost anything and also

Speaker A

with a system that is simple. I made sure it is simple. I looked for it to be simple and what I am looking for is outside of this chart. This is where I have to enter because otherwise I can't

Speaker A

win, but I don't know I don't know how I do tell you that the work is outside.

Speaker A

You don't care what happens now because the work was already done outside. You already know what numbers you have to look for, what you have to find each day to reach the goals. The only thing that can happen is that if I make a

Speaker A

mistake in this test, I lose it, okay? And maybe this test, having done it well, I could have gotten a withdrawal two, well, okay, I reduced my profitability from 200%to 190%. Well, okay, I mean, losing this account doesn't make me, I don't know, lose

Speaker A

everything, it doesn't mean it's a disaster, right? On the other hand, when you are looking at your own money it is totally different. Totally.

Speaker A

And any advice to finish for people who want to dedicate themselves to funding like you do?

Speaker A

Yes. Let's see, advice for people. Umm giving advice is hard for me, honestly, right? Let's see, what I always say, what we have discussed, right? In the end, if you want to dedicate yourself to this, first do it in a way that is

Speaker A

comfortable. I mean, for me it would have been very uncomfortable when I started, even though I saw I was winning, to quit everything and dedicate myself to this 100%is something that is difficult, right? I think you have to go little by little.

Speaker A

Before you start spending money on accounts, backtest what you think you are going to do so it makes sense, but adapted for funding, not like most people do. And once you have some data to back you up, and everything goes

Speaker A

wrong—because everything will go wrong at some point—well, maybe risk a certain amount of money, that bankroll, and dedicate, say, a year to giving it a shot in the time you have available outside of your job, in your day-to-day life. That is what I would

Speaker A

advise, not to do this full-time, even if you see people here withdrawing a lot of money, right? Don't quit everything and jump into this, because it could go wrong, which is the most likely outcome.

Speaker A

Totally. Totally. It's the most likely outcome. Great, man. Well, perfect, right? I think it's great, man. My goodness. Did you like it? Good.

Speaker A

Perfect. Great. Super.

Topics:prop tradingfunded traderVicente Ponsprop firm challengesrisk managementbankroll managementForex tradinglive tradingtrading strategiestrading room

Get More with the SozAI App

Transcribe recordings, audio files, and YouTube videos — with AI summaries and speaker detection. 30 minutes free.

App Store Google Play

Or transcribe another YouTube video here →

Free tools: TXT to SRT · SRT Validator · Merge SRT · Subtitle to Text · All tools