Funded7 aims to build long-term partnerships with disciplined, professional traders. As we now release our evaluation philosophy, we are clarifying and redefining our previous rule terminologies.
In the past, various trading patterns that failed to demonstrate consistency were judged under the broad term “All-In.” However, moving forward, we are clearly separating the definitions.
What is “All-In” Trading? #
“All-In” trading refers to the cases where the Profit Target or Payout is reached through a single or multiple one sided trades.
It is a high-risk gambling behavior that for example uses a statistically “abnormal lot size” compared to the rest of the account’s trading history, attempting to pass a profit target or secure a payout with a single trade (or trade cluster).
While “failing to demonstrate consistency” (Article 2) focuses mainly on “profit concentration (the result),” “All-In” trading considers the “process itself (the intentional one-shot attempt)” to be the critical issue.
Why is “All-In” Trading Strictly Prohibited?
This approach is the exact opposite of the “disciplined risk management” and “replicable skill” that we want to evaluate. This is not skill; it is nothing less than a “bet” that exploits the firm’s rules.
- Abnormal Risk-Taking: Suddenly taking an abnormal position, like 80 lots, compared to other consistent trades (e.g., 1 lot) is a complete abandonment of risk management.
- Does Not Prove Skill: Even if such a trade succeeds once, it does not prove any sustainable skill whatsoever.
- Abuse of the Program: This is an intentional abuse of our program’s fundamental purpose, which is to discover consistent traders.
Real-World Examples of “All-In” Trading #
Below are actual cases that are judged as “All-In” under this definition.
Case 1: Profit Generation via Abnormal Lot Sizes #
- Trading Activity: The majority of trades in this account were small, such as 0.1 or 1.0 lots. However, suddenly, positions of 7.2 lots on jpn225 and 80 lots on nas100—magnitudes larger than the other trades—were executed.
- Profit Impact: These two “All-In” trades alone generated approximately ¥1.94 million in profit, far exceeding the account’s net profit (¥3,373.50). This means that all other trades combined resulted in a significant net loss.
- Verdict: This is considered a typical “All-In” trade, as it was a one-shot attempt using abnormal lot sizes that were completely inconsistent with the rest of the trading history.
Case 2: Extreme Lot Size on a Single Instrument #
- Trading Activity: This account was normally traded within a 1.0–2.3 lot range. However, on October 15, an extreme sell position of 27 lots on usdjpy was executed—more than 10 times the standard trade size.
- Profit Impact: This single trade generated ¥2,181,600 in profit, accounting for approximately 60.8% of the account’s total profit (¥3,586,590).
- Verdict: While the profit percentage (60.8%) is a factor, the process itself—the “intentional excessive risk-taking (27 lots) that deviates from all other trading history”—is what constitutes the “All-In” judgment.
If a trade is deemed “All-In,” the profit generated from it will not be approved, and it may be treated as a serious breach of our terms. We only support consistent, professional traders.
