Not supported · Sizing · 2026-09-30
Is 5% of the account per trade survivable?
What this means
Summing monthly R for the universe scaled to the live basket mix gives about +2.5R a month, but a worst peak-to-trough run of −22.6R. At 5% of the account per R, that run alone would be −113%, more than the whole account (ignoring compounding). The figure reproduces exactly from the trade logs. On this evidence, a 5% risk level would not have survived the worst stretch in the backtest.
Explanation checked against the data.
By timeframe
| Timeframe | Verdict | n | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15-minute | Not tested: account-level sizing question, not a per-timeframe signal test | ||
| 1-hour | Not tested: account-level sizing question, not a per-timeframe signal test | ||
| 4-hour | Not tested: account-level sizing question, not a per-timeframe signal test | ||
| Daily | Not tested: account-level sizing question, not a per-timeframe signal test | ||
- Hypothesis
- The app's default of 1R = 5% of a $10,000 account is a survivable risk level.
- Method
- R sums by month (no compounding) from the TradingView logs, live basket vs universe scaled to the same mix, 2016-01 to 2026-08.
- Result
- Universe-scaled: +2.5R/month, 73% months up, worst peak-to-trough -22.6R (= -113% of the account at 5%); basket (in-sample): +9.6R/month, 88% up, worst -5.8R. Recommendation: ~1% per trade.
- How much to trust it
- Medium: TV outcomes; months by entry date; no compounding
- Did it change the live rule?
- recommendation only; backend still sizes a canonical $10,000 at 5% = $500 per trade
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).