In the communication circle of traders, "pushing the market" and "making the market" have always been quite topical words. When the market reaches a critical price and there is a stalemate between long and short, if someone decisively enters a large position to break the balance, it is often regarded as having "strong execution" and "ruthless style" or even as a reflection of trading strength.

However, in the proprietary trading examination, which highly restores the real trading environment, such operations are clearly prohibited. This has also caused many traders to question: Why do common operating methods in the market not work in a system that incubates professional traders?

What is "push plate/" "Push order"?

In real trading, push order and order placement are not standard terms, but they usually have some common characteristics:

Concentrate the use of large positions to complete transactions in a short period of time

At key support or resistance levels, try to directly promote price breakthroughs

The focus of decision-making is more on position strength rather than structural confirmation

It is undeniable that under certain market conditions, this kind of operation may be effective quickly and even bring eye-catching short-term returns. But the problem is that it often gives people the illusion of "controlling the market" rather than a set of trading logic that can be reproduced in the long term.

Why does the proprietary trading examination not recognize this method?

The core goal of the proprietary trading examination is to select traders who can control funds for a long time and achieve stable profits, rather than "gamblers" in a single market. The reason why market pushing is prohibited is not to deny the possibility of short-term profits, but that it is completely contrary to the core qualities of professional traders. This can be seen from three aspects:

First, whether the risk is controllable.

Pushing/making orders is highly dependent on one-time position impact, with concentrated profit and loss results and asymmetric retracement, which itself is a high-risk signal in the risk control model.

Second, whether the strategy is repeatable.

A single success based on "pushing through" positions cannot prove that this is a trading system that can be replicated in the long term. What the self-operated system is looking for is sustainable trading capabilities.

Third, whether the trading behavior is stable.

Abnormal lot sizes, concentrated transactions, and excessive contributions to fluctuations in a short period of time will be judged by the system as "abnormal trading behavior" rather than bonus points for ability.

In other words, in the proprietary trading exam, even if the result is profit, the process is not logical and will still not be recognized.

What will happen if you do this in the self-operated trading exam?

In the self-operated trading exam, operations such as pushing and placing orders are usually directly included in the scope of risk control:

As minor as trading Easy results will not be accepted

In serious cases, it will be judged as a violation, and the exam or profit sharing qualification will be terminated

Because for EagleTrader, standardization always comes before "single profit performance". More importantly, this kind of operation is not friendly to the growth of traders.

It can easily lead traders to think "position solves everything" and ignore the entry structure and risk-reward ratio;

It will weaken the understanding of market structure and rhythm, focusing on "whether it can be pushed through" rather than "should it be taken action";

In the long term, this is contrary to the stable, controllable and sustainable path pursued by professional traders.

In the final analysis, the EagleTrader Proprietary Trading Exam prohibits push orders. It does not restrict traders' aggressiveness, but reminds one thing: operations that appear to be fierce in the short term do not mean a trading method that can survive in the long term. After all, the truly valuable trading ability is to continue to exist in the market under the premise of controllable risks.