Every prop firm case study you read online ends at "and then I got funded". This one starts from the same place — a validated challenge — but shows the actual trade log, the two bad days, and the stakes that nearly cost the account.
The subject (we will call him "M.") is a 31-year-old ATP tennis specialist based in Lyon who agreed to share his trading log after hitting his first Prime Sports Funded payout. Everything below is verified against his dashboard exports.
P.S.: A big thank you to you, M. 🙏
The subject profile
- Experience: 6 years betting on ATP / WTA tennis, 2 years tracking closing line value
- Pre-challenge ROI: +3.8% over 1 200 tracked bets
- Preferred markets: ATP pre-match money line, set spreads on liquid matches
- Avoided: live betting ("reaction speed too slow"), Grand Slam finals ("sharp money wins")
- Challenge chosen: 25 000 $ with 90% profit share
The plan he wrote before the first bet
M. opened a text file the day he purchased the challenge. It contained four rules:
- Maximum 2 bets per day
- Stake fixed at 3.5% of initial capital (875 $), flex to 5% only on edges ≥ 6%
- Minimum odds 1.60 (above PSF's 1.50 floor, his personal filter)
- Mandatory journal entry before sleep every night
The plan was designed to respect Prime Sports Funded rules by a wide margin: 3.5% stake fits inside the 2–5% band, 1.60 minimum odds clears the 1.50 floor, and 2 bets per day caps exposure well below the 30% cap. See the full challenge rules.
The 19-day trade log
| Day | Bets | Result | Daily P&L | Running balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | W / W | + 1 315 $ | 26 315 $ |
| 2 | 1 | W | + 875 $ | 27 190 $ |
| 3 | 2 | W / L | − 280 $ | 26 910 $ |
| 4 | 2 | W / W | + 1 160 $ | 28 070 $ |
| 5 | 2 | L / L | − 1 750 $ | 26 320 $ |
| 6 | rest | — | 0 | 26 320 $ |
| 7 | 1 | W | + 1 050 $ | 27 370 $ |
| 8 | 2 | W / L | + 340 $ | 27 710 $ |
| 9 | 2 | W / W | + 1 480 $ | 29 190 $ |
| 10 | 1 | L | − 875 $ | 28 315 $ |
| 11 | 2 | W / W | + 1 575 $ | 29 890 $ |
| 12 | rest | — | 0 | 29 890 $ |
| 13 | 2 | W / W | + 1 225 $ | 31 115 $ |
| 14 | 2 | L / W | + 95 $ | 31 210 $ |
| 15 | 1 | L | − 875 $ | 30 335 $ |
| 16 | 2 | W / W | + 1 340 $ | 31 675 $ |
| 17 | 2 | L / W | + 180 $ | 31 855 $ |
| 18 | 1 | W | + 1 425 $ | 33 280 $ |
| 19 | 1 | W | + 775 $ | 34 055 $ |
Final stats: 28 bets, 17 wins (60.7%), 11 losses, average odds 1.94, average stake 3.8%, profit +9 055 $ (+36.2%). Target cleared with 1.2% of room above the +35% requirement.
The two bad days that almost killed it
Day 5: the 1 750 $ loss
Two ATP 250 bets, both favourites, both lost in three sets. The daily loss of 7% landed uncomfortably close to the 10% daily drawdown cap. M.'s journal entry that night reads:
"Second loss at 22h. I wanted to place a third bet on the late match in Australia to recover. I closed the app instead. First real test of the rule."
The 2-bets-per-day rule was the guardrail. Without it, he says he would have placed a revenge bet on a coin-flip market.
Day 10: the isolated loss
A single loss on an odds 2.10 bet. Nothing catastrophic (−3.5%), but M.'s next day was scheduled with 2 bets. His journal entry:
"Tempted to skip the analysis and bet on whatever comes up tomorrow to offset yesterday. Took a walk. Did my usual prep in the evening. Placed nothing impulsive."
What kept the challenge alive
Three decisions from M.'s log that replay the same principle:
- Rest days were planned, not reactive. Days 6 and 12 were written into the calendar before the challenge started. Resting after a loss is tilt management; resting on a schedule is discipline.
- The stake never moved. Across 28 bets, 27 were staked at 3.5%. Only one bet at day 18 went to 4.2% on a high-edge read. No bet hit 5%.
- The consistency rule was never close. PSF caps a single bet at 30% of the profit target (here, 2 625 $ on a +35% target of 8 750 $). His biggest single win was 1 575 $ — 60% below the cap. No single bet could validate or invalidate the challenge.
What he would do differently
Asked for his top three post-mortems, M. listed:
- Start one or two days later. He opened the challenge on a Saturday and felt pressure to bet on ATP Finals matches. He says a Monday start would have given cleaner early entries.
- Track closing line value during the challenge, not after. Live CLV tracking would have flagged day 5 as variance rather than strategy failure earlier.
- Add a "no-bet day" after any 7%+ loss. Day 6 was pre-scheduled; he got lucky with the timing. A rule forcing 24 hours off after a 7%+ loss would harden the protection.
The funded account that followed
M. transitioned to the funded 25K account three days after validation. His first payout, 14 days later, cleared 1 920 $ at 90% share on 2 133 $ of profit. He is now 47 days into the funded phase at the time of writing.
FAQ
How much did the challenge cost M.?
The 25 000 $ tier entry fee. No additional costs, no recurring subscription. See the billing policy for the full terms.
Did M. use any automated tools?
No. PSF rules forbid bots, scripts and any automated placement. M. built his shortlist with Oddsportal and a personal spreadsheet.
How many hours per day did this take?
By his own count: 45–90 minutes of analysis before the evening window, plus 15 minutes of journaling at night. Roughly 1h30 per bet day.
Could this be replicated on other sports?
Yes, the framework is sport-agnostic. The stake plan, rest days, and journal rules work for any market. The edge is specialist-dependent: M.'s ATP knowledge is what produced the 60.7% hit rate at 1.94 average odds.
What if he had hit the daily drawdown?
Challenge invalidated, challenge fee forfeited, no personal capital loss. He would have been able to purchase a new challenge and retry.
Next step
M.'s full stake log and his journal template are available in our betting journal guide. The structure he used is replicable on day one of any challenge tier.
Want to run your own version of this case study? Pick a challenge size.