Not supported · Exits · 2026-10-10
Do setups with tighter stops (in % of price) do better?
What this means
Setups with tighter stops, measured as a percentage of price, did no better than those with wider stops. Mean R was roughly flat across the five stop-width groups on 1h (+0.18 to +0.22R) and on daily (+0.21 to +0.35R, with no trend). Typical stops are about 2% of price on 15m, 3.4% on 1h, 6% on 4h and 8% on daily.
The explanation is our best reading; the data shows the result but not the cause directly.
By timeframe
| Timeframe | Verdict | n | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15-minute | Inconclusive | 16,496 | tightest fifth +0.16R vs widest +0.07R (-0.09, -0.15 to -0.03) |
| 1-hour | Not supported | 13,208 | Q1-Q5 flat (+0.22 ... +0.18) |
| 4-hour | Not supported | 3,990 | flat |
| Daily | Not supported | 2,098 | Q1-Q5 flat (+0.24 ... +0.27) |
- Hypothesis
- Mean setup R rises as the stop distance shrinks.
- Method
- TradingView universe logs; stop % inferred per setup; quintiles of stop width.
- Result
- Flat: 1h Q1-Q5 +0.22 / +0.18 / +0.18 / +0.20 / +0.18; 1d +0.24 / +0.30 / +0.21 / +0.35 / +0.27. Median stop 2.1% (15m), 3.4% (1h), 6.0% (4h), 8.2% (1d).
- How much to trust it
- High: TV fills, full universe
- Did it change the live rule?
- No.
Scripts and data for this study will be linked here when the research code is published on GitHub.
Education and research only. Not financial advice. Backtests use today's index members (survivorship bias).