Las empresas de FONDEO me van a ODIAR por este vídeo

Summary

Alex Ruiz argues that passing a proprietary-funding challenge depends less on finding a profitable strategy than on controlling drawdown and position size. A strategy can make money over time yet fail a challenge if its losing streaks breach the firm’s drawdown limit before it reaches the profit target. He emphasizes that traders should size risk against the account’s actual drawdown cushion, not its advertised nominal balance.

He also argues that high-reward, low-win-rate approaches—often associated in the video with scalping and Smart Money/ICT-style training—can produce volatile equity curves that are poorly suited to funding challenges. In his view, more consistent results, lower variance, and risk calibrated to a trader’s real win rate improve the chance of passing and withdrawing.

These are the speaker’s claims and examples. The video does not independently verify the cited company statistics or provide a full backtest.

Key Figures and Examples

• Funding outcomes attributed to My Forex Funds: Out of 100,000 people paying for a challenge, Ruiz says about 10,000 pass phase one, 2,400 become funded, and 72 withdraw profits—about 0.07% of the initial group. He describes these as company data but says he could not access more recent official figures.
• $50,000 futures account example: The account has a maximum drawdown of 4% ($2,000) and a $3,000 profit target. Ruiz treats the $2,000 drawdown as the trader’s effective working capital, making a 1% risk based on the nominal $50,000 balance equal to 25% of that cushion.
• $100,000 futures account example: The account has a $3,000 maximum drawdown and a $6,000 target. Ruiz compares the target with the drawdown cushion as 200%, versus 150% for the $50,000 example. He says the larger account is not automatically easier or better.
• Challenge costs, as estimated in the video: Approximately $50–$100 for the smaller account and $150–$200 or more for the larger one. Ruiz argues that repeated failures can make the larger account more expensive.
• Profitability and win-rate examples: He says a 1:1 reward-to-risk ratio requires roughly a 51% win rate; a 3:1 ratio can be profitable around 27–28%; and a 0.5 ratio may work with a win rate around 60–68%. These are simplified examples, and the video’s ratio terminology and some thresholds are not fully consistent.
• Ruiz describes a strategy returning 17.5% annually as potentially unsuitable for a funding challenge if its drawdowns exceed the firm’s limits or it cannot reach the target within the challenge rules.

Framework and Recommendations

• Measure the strategy before choosing risk: Keep a trading journal and establish the actual win rate and reward-to-risk profile. Ruiz says these figures are needed to estimate losing streaks and drawdown.
• Choose an account by its rules, not its headline balance: Compare the maximum drawdown, profit target, target-to-drawdown relationship, and challenge fee. He recommends starting with the smaller account because he considers it easier and cheaper to retry.
• Treat the drawdown limit as the real capital constraint: Size each position so losses fit within the available cushion. Do not calculate risk as though the full nominal account balance were yours to lose.
• Favor lower variance for challenges: Ruiz says a high-win-rate strategy with a more modest reward-to-risk profile can have shorter, less severe losing periods and may be better suited to challenge limits than a strategy seeking large multiples with a low win rate.
• Use the strategy’s demonstrated win rate to guide risk:
  • Below 50%: He recommends risking 0.50% or less per trade.
  • Around 50–55%: He cites roughly 1% as a moderate-risk example.
  • Above 65%: He says to increase risk to about 1.5% (“1 and 5” in the subtitles).
  • For 30–40% win rates, he also describes 0.25–0.50% as a safer position-size range. Above 80%, he says larger sizing may be possible.

These are speaker-provided guidelines, not universal rules.

• Increase size gradually: Raise position size in increments of 10–20%, rather than making a sudden jump. For example, Ruiz warns that moving directly from 1% to 2% doubles risk.

Assets, Firms, and Trading Approaches Mentioned

• Instruments and accounts: Futures funding accounts; no specific futures contracts or stock tickers are named.
• Companies and services: My Forex Funds, FundedNext, and Interactive Brokers.
• Trading approaches and concepts: Scalping, day trading, swing trading, Smart Money, ICT, CRT, Elliott theory, value investing, and trading based on macroeconomic, geopolitical, technical, metric, or fundamental analysis.
• Risk concepts: Maximum drawdown, win rate, reward-to-risk, position sizing, losing streaks, variance, and market inefficiency.

Disclosures and Cautions

• Ruiz recommends FundedNext and directs viewers to his referral link, mentioning possible discounts. The video does not explicitly state whether he receives compensation.
• He says he has used FundedNext and that it has resolved issues he encountered, but also cautions that funding companies can cause problems.
• He says he has had funding accounts banned for returns the firms considered contrary to their policies.
• No explicit “not financial advice” disclaimer appears in the subtitles.

Presenter and sources: Alex Ruiz is the presenter. Sources and organizations he refers to include My Forex Funds (for the claimed pass and withdrawal figures), Interactive Brokers (for his stated live-trading records), and FundedNext (the firm he recommends).