The Desk sells math, not edge — so the math has to be honest and reproducible. Here's exactly how every number on the site is computed, what it assumes, and where it stops being trustworthy.
Every pass-rate figure comes from a barrier-stopped Monte Carlo simulation, not a closed-form shortcut. We model your strategy as a sequence of independent trades with a stated win rate and reward-to-risk, then simulate tens of thousands of full challenge attempts through the firm's actual barrier geometry — profit target, drawdown floor (static, trailing, or trailing-then-lock), daily loss limit, and minimum trading days. An attempt passes only if it reaches the target before breaching any floor and after the minimum days. The pass rate is the fraction of simulated attempts that clear.
This matters because the trailing drawdown that most real futures firms use has no clean closed-form pass rate for asymmetric payoffs. Simulating the real rule is more honest than quoting the static-floor formula and hoping the difference doesn't matter. It does.
We validate the engine against a known reference: the Top Step 50K combine, run by a zero-edge trader (50% win rate, 1:1 reward-to-risk).
The static-floor number reproduces the classical gambler's-ruin result that pass-rate math traditionally quotes. Switching only the drawdown rule to the trailing-then-lock floor Top Step actually uses drops the same trader to ~26% — a ~14-point gap that is pure barrier geometry. Under trailing rules, risk-sizing tweaks barely move the number; only a real, measured edge does. That finding is the product's whole thesis.
| Firm | Top Step 50K (target $3,000, max loss $2,000, lock at $52,000) |
| Win rate / R:R | 0.50 / 1.0 (zero edge) |
| Risk per trade | $250 |
| Trades per day | 5 |
| Monte Carlo paths | 40,000 (seed 1) |
The seven quant tools apply established, citable methods — not proprietary black boxes:
Where the math stops being trustworthy — stated plainly, because a transparency product that hides its assumptions isn't one: