failed three evaluations in a row, is it me or are the rules rigged

[Caleb]

three challenges, three fails, real money in fees gone. starting to wonder if the rules are designed to be basically unbeatable and the whole thing is rigged. but i also dont want to cope my way out of looking at my own trading. how do i honestly tell whether its the rules or its me?

[thomas_x]

look at how each one died, not that they died. if all three ended with a drawdown breach from an oversized trade or a revenge push, thats you, and its fixable by sizing down and managing tilt. if they ended because a genuinely fair, well-sized approach simply couldnt satisfy a bizarre rule, thats a firm-fit problem. pull up the three blowups and find the common cause. the pattern in how you failed is the whole answer.

[harrywalker]

nine times out of ten when someone posts three fails, the autopsy shows the same self-inflicted cause each time, usually too much risk per trade chasing the target. the rules arent rigged so much as unforgiving of overleverage, which most people are. the consistency of the failure mode tells you its behavioural, not a conspiracy.

[frostbyte]

three fails and the first instinct is 'maybe its rigged' rather than 'maybe i shouldnt be risking real fees on a method i havent proven profitable anywhere'. the evaluation didnt rig anything, it charged you to discover you werent ready, which a free demo would have told you for nothing.

[Chris]

the troll is harsh but points at the real test you skipped: are you profitable on a demo or your own small account over a meaningful sample, with the same risk youd use in the challenge? if you havent proven that anywhere, the evaluation isnt rigged, its just the most expensive place to discover you dont yet have an edge. go prove it for free first, then come back and the challenge becomes a formality rather than a gamble.

[lowkeysam]

autopsy the three blowups. same cause means its you, and thats fixable.