VirtualMark 

Incorrect. The 3:1 risk to reward ratio is a new rule.

The official statement is 'don't on average risk more than 3x profit'.

A hard 3:1 RR is a rule that cannot be enforced. When I was a newbie trader (a long time ago) I clearly remember hitting my stop... and getting straight back in again. And that was on my own live account.

In my opinion, Apex 'rules' are ambiguous and unclear because they need to allow skilled traders the freedom to maximise profits while protecting against people profiting from the prop firm model itself rather than from trading.

For example, there is a difference between an experienced trader scalping an area with multiple entries vs a new trader whose sole strategy is to double up on a loss. We all know this can work many times, but the one time it doesn't blows the account. Under the prop payout model, this type of strategy can result in many payouts. I think Apex are right to say this type of strategy isn't allowed.

shokunin 

The official statement is 'don't on average risk more than 3x profit'. A hard 3:1 RR is a rule that cannot be enforced. When I was a newbie trader (a long time ago) I clearly remember hitting my stop... and getting straight back in again. And that was on my own live account. In my opinion, Apex 'rules' are ambiguous and unclear because they need to allow skilled traders the freedom to maximise profits while protecting against people profiting from the prop firm model itself rather than from trading. For example, there is a difference between an experienced trader scalping an area with multiple entries vs a new trader whose sole strategy is to double up on a loss. We all know this can work many times, but the one time it doesn't blows the account. Under the prop payout model, this type of strategy can result in many payouts. I think Apex are right to say this type of strategy isn't allowed.

Yeah it's going to be hard to enforce. The same with DCA, you can just exit your trade, then go in again with double size. The problem as you say is that you eventually run out of money when that one trade goes against you. AKA the Martingale strategy.

I think my issue is that there is more than one way to trade, and some scalpers prefer to focus on high probability trades vs low risk. Risk is just one parameter, and you can easily blow an account by having a tight stop, death by 1000 paper cuts.

It should depend on the individual, and how they want to trade. Keeping size small, taking steady winning trades/days. How they trade shouldn't be an issue, as long as they're not having huge swings.

I can understand Apex doesn't want people who recklessly blow accounts. But at the same time, they offer accounts with 35 minis, which is a huge size to trade, they offer 1 day to pass, and give incentives to pass the second largest account in a relatively short time. They send out all the wrong signals, it feels like a bait and switch as the real rules start once you're funded.

If they were really looking for trading partners, they would have evaluations that had the exact same rules as live trading.

Jack22 

Per their Discord: Darrell: "THERE ARE NO NEW RULES - all these rules have existed since inception - this is just examples to answer the many questions we get and to make sure everyone understands as we have a new compliance team that will be enforcing its not 1:3 its 3:1 meaning dont risk more than 3x what your shooting for on a consistent basis if yo haev to close early now and then thats fine" I can't find Darrell's quote, but many mods have confirmed the following, Tradekage (mod): "you can add into a loser ONCE as darrell said. 1x" I've read the site and my old PA agreements, I can't find a 3:1 ratio in there anywhere. There are general terms around risk management, etc., but not specific in terms of how much you are allowed to risk per trade. If I ask myself, would I, or a hypothetical trader need to change their approach based on how they're enforcing this new risk management, my answer would be yes and therefore I would also argue it's a new rule. For the DCA, that has always been against the rules, but in practice, you have been allowed to DCA if you have a methodology, risk management, etc.. Many people have had payouts using DCA (more than 1x) over the years. This is a definite change in how they are enforcing the no DCA rule, so I would make the same argument that it's a new rule that people need to consider in their approach with Apex.

Same, I can't find 3:1 explicitly called out in my old agreements. I also do not remember the "cannot add to losers" explicitly being called out like this. They always had the "no lucky windfall" rule, but if you had a position, and it happened to go against you and you wanted to add more you could.

I haven't asked for an apex payout since these new rules hit, but curious if my trades will start being rejected

Good clarification from Apex:
https://support.atf.com/hc/en-us/articles/4404875002139-What-are-the-Consistency-Rules-for-PA-and-Funded-Accounts

pipandrun 

Good clarification from Apex: https://support.atf.com/hc/en-us/articles/4404875002139-What-are-the-Consistency-Rules-for-PA-and-Funded-Accounts

It's good that it's clarified, but that's not what people had to sign. They had to accept a contract on the PA that stated that stop losses have to be placed, that payouts would be denied and accounts would be forfeited, along with simulated profits. It was a very aggressive contract, and it looks like they've had a huge backlash and had to backtrack on some of this.

Which is good news, as their original statement was pretty awful. I still find the video pretty condescending, when he says - "stop with the conspiracy theories, stop with the craziness, be quiet, calm down, if that's your attitude then go, it won't be tolerated anymore". Er... ok! 😂

So the long and short is don't be a gambling degenerate, or blow through accounts just to get lucky. We don't need to set a stop but do need to have risk management. And can scale into a losing trade once.

Seems reasonable, and I can understand them not wanting people to use the whole account as a stop loss. I.e some people look at the whole PA system as a risk/reward. Buy multiple evaluations, then buy the PAs, total cost $100-$300 each. Then gamble the PA's, knowing that one or two will get lucky and make thousands and you'll be in a net profit. And they're only risking the fees to get this. I wouldn't want people like that if I was running a prop firm.

It's a shame they didn't address the Zoom meeting requirement, or the requirement to video yourself trading. I do wonder why they have this, do they suspect people are trading for others? Or maybe using software to trade? I just can't understand why they'd need to watch you place trades.

VirtualMark 

It's good that it's clarified, but that's not what people had to sign. They had to accept a contract on the PA that stated that stop losses have to be placed, that payouts would be denied and accounts would be forfeited, along with simulated profits. It was a very aggressive contract, and it looks like they've had a huge backlash and had to backtrack on some of this. ... It's a shame they didn't address the Zoom meeting requirement, or the requirement to video yourself trading. I do wonder why they have this, do they suspect people are trading for others? Or maybe using software to trade? I just can't understand why they'd need to watch you place trades.

Did the PA agreement actually change? I wasn't aware of that.

From the video, it sounds like fraud and scammers are a big issue for Apex. I'm looking forward to seeing his next videos which are supposed to go into more detail about what they are up against.

shokunin 

Did the PA agreement actually change? I wasn't aware of that. From the video, it sounds like fraud and scammers are a big issue for Apex. I'm looking forward to seeing his next videos which are supposed to go into more detail about what they are up against.

Yeah, a screen pops up after the PA fee is paid, a bit of a naughty thing to do tbh, because you should have a chance to read a contract before you pay a fee.

I'm glad this has got so much attention, as their whole business exists because people want to get paid. If they start making it harder then I can't see them lasting. The sort of money we're talking about can be life changing for a lot of people, if you're getting consistent payouts then you can easily give up your day job.

And with 20 accounts like some of the Youtubers claim to have, you could draw out $80k a month or more. It's no joke, and I'd imagine a lot of people are spending their hard earned money for a shot at this.

VirtualMark 

Yeah, a screen pops up after the PA fee is paid, a bit of a naughty thing to do tbh, because you should have a chance to read a contract before you pay a fee. I'm glad this has got so much attention, as their whole business exists because people want to get paid. If they start making it harder then I can't see them lasting. The sort of money we're talking about can be life changing for a lot of people, if you're getting consistent payouts then you can easily give up your day job. And with 20 accounts like some of the Youtubers claim to have, you could draw out $80k a month or more. It's no joke, and I'd imagine a lot of people are spending their hard earned money for a shot at this.

VirtualMark 

Yeah, a screen pops up after the PA fee is paid, a bit of a naughty thing to do tbh, because you should have a chance to read a contract before you pay a fee.

They may have a problem with full disclosure. Although there is no hard and fast law about full disclosure, intentionally leaving a portion of the contract out until the fee is paid could be considered "nondisclosure through silence". https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html

I think they're headed for big trouble.

phantomtrader 

They may have a problem with full disclosure. Although there is no hard and fast law about full disclosure, intentionally leaving a portion of the contract out until the fee is paid could be considered "nondisclosure through silence". https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html I think they're headed for big trouble.

You may be right. I don't see how they can throw a contract at you after you've paid, you should be able to refuse and get a refund.

There's already evidence on threads I'm following on Reddit of payouts being denied, and them asking for videos of people trading. That's a deal breaker for me, nobody gets to demand stuff like that from me, my home is my sanctuary and I'll decide who I let in. Unbelievable.

There's also people saying on Youtube that they have had PA accounts denied after passing in 1 day due to gambling. Apex seems to be done in my eyes. This particular commenter said he traded CPI on an eval and passed, then was denied his PA account.

And they are getting some seriously horrible reviews on Trustpilot. Just have a look, filter by 1 star and sort by most recent. Someone claims to have had their accounts closed after speaking out on Discord.

So many red flags here.

VirtualMark 

You may be right. I don't see how they can throw a contract at you after you've paid, you should be able to refuse and get a refund. There's already evidence on threads I'm following on Reddit of payouts being denied, and them asking for videos of people trading. That's a deal breaker for me, nobody gets to demand stuff like that from me, my home is my sanctuary and I'll decide who I let in. Unbelievable. There's also people saying on Youtube that they have had PA accounts denied after passing in 1 day due to gambling. Apex seems to be done in my eyes. This particular commenter said he traded CPI on an eval and passed, then was denied his PA account. And they are getting some seriously horrible reviews on Trustpilot. Just have a look, filter by 1 star and sort by most recent. Someone claims to have had their accounts closed after speaking out on Discord. So many red flags here.

Their rules have always been ambiguous. Apex is screaming and yelling now that their rules haven't changed - that they're only enforcing their rules with more oversight. But they have over 8 full pages of these "rules" - you need an attorney just to understand what they're really asking a trader to do. For instance, you can't trade spreads, you can scalp but your risk has to be 3:1 which is ridiculous for a scalper, DCA is limited to 1 add, no automated trading strategies, no ORB strategies i.e. OCO orders - in other words, they want the moving average crossover traders who are guaranteed to fail.
They're denying payouts across the board from what I've read on Discord and YouTube and many others are "in review", whatever that means.
They're on the ragged edge of disaster. Otherwise, none of this would be necessary. I scalp and use my automated systems - like many other traders. I never signed up with them and never would but many, many others have gotten caught in this web of ambiguity.