Bottom line up front
This account is +1.71% on the starting deposit in the data covered, turning $6.9M into $7.0M with $118k realised PnL. Only the most recent public fills are visible due to the 10k-fill cap. The data-covered peak of $7.023M occurred on 5 May, with an data-covered drawdown of just -0.32%. The headline is deceptive: the account made $139k on a single long VVV trade that masked catastrophic losses elsewhere. Strip that one trade and the account is deeply underwater. The core problem is not risk management—it is position sizing divorced from edge. The trader sizes positions at 40x leverage on instruments with no demonstrated edge, then compounds losses through revenge trades and averaging down into deteriorating positions.
What the data shows
The data covered spans 17 hours across 5–6 May 2026, covering 64 closed episodes and 22 open positions. Realised PnL is $101.6k after $370.72 in fees. The account is long-biased: long trades generated $112.9k PnL on a 41.67% win rate, while short trades generated $5.5k on a 60.71% win rate. This asymmetry is not edge; it is leverage and sizing.
The VVV trade accounts for $139.7k of the $118.4k total profit. This single position—opened after a $13.6k loss on xyz:CL and closed 8 hours later—is a revenge trade flagged in the behavioural data. Remove it and the account realised -$21.3k. The trader is profitable only because one oversized bet recovered two prior oversized losses.
By instrument, the picture is stark. VVV, xyz:ORCL, xyz:MSTR, xyz:EWY, xyz:TSLA, and xyz:NVDA show primary edge verdicts with 100% or near-100% win rates on tiny sample sizes (1–2 episodes each). xyz:CL, xyz:BRENTOIL, xyz:SNDK, xyz:MU, and xyz:CRCL show no edge, with win rates between 0% and 50%. The trader has concentrated losses in instruments where the data shows no edge, then sized those positions at 5–60x median loss size.
Fees are negligible at 0.36% of PnL, reflecting 80.33% maker fills. The real damage is in position sizing and instrument selection.
Trade quality
Win rate is 50.0% across 64 closed episodes. Profit factor is 3.57, meaning gross wins are 3.57x gross losses. Average win is $5,136.60; average loss is -$1,437.39. Expectancy is $1,849.61 per closed trade. Win/loss ratio is 3.57.
These numbers are misleading. A 50% win rate with a 3.57 profit factor typically signals an edge. But the distribution is pathological: the top win ($139.7k) is 27x the second-largest win ($6.5k). The top five losses total -$30.6k; the top five wins total $152.9k. Without the VVV outlier, the account is a -$21k loser on 63 other trades. The profit factor and expectancy are artifacts of one revenge trade.
Post-mortems
xyz:CL long, 5 May 08:50–08:52 UTC, entry $97.58, exit $95.65, -$13,608 loss
This is the largest loss in the data covered and the trigger for the VVV revenge trade. The trader entered a 5,755-contract long position (notional $561.9k, 40x+ implied leverage) on a 1-hour chart. The position hit a -3.07% maximum adverse excursion within 12 minutes and was closed at -2.17%. The structural stop (ATR 14 on 1h) was 2.46% away. The trader sized this position 61x the median loss size. There is no evidence of a pre-defined edge on xyz:CL; the by-instrument data shows 37.5% win rate across 8 episodes. This was a sized bet on a coin with no edge.
xyz:BRENTOIL long, 5 May 08:50–08:51 UTC, entry $104.15, exit $103.44, -$6,561 loss
Opened immediately after the xyz:CL loss closed, this is a revenge trade. The trader entered 2,471 contracts (notional $257.6k) and closed it 36 seconds later at -0.68% loss. The position never had room to work; it was sized at 29x median loss size. The MAE was -1.37%, the structural stop was 2.45% away. This is pure emotional re-engagement: the trader lost $13.6k, immediately opened a new position in a different instrument at similar size, and exited within a minute. The by-instrument data shows 0% win rate on xyz:BRENTOIL (2 episodes, both losses totalling -$8.1k).
What the risk simulator reveals
Under a 1% stop-loss rule applied to the data covered's closed episodes, the simulated PnL would be -$297k with a -7.88% data-covered drawdown. Under 2%, simulated PnL is -$594k with -15.34% data-covered drawdown. Under 4%, simulated PnL is -$1.188M with -29.17% data-covered drawdown. Thirteen episodes would have been stopped early under the 1% rule.
These counterfactuals reveal the fragility of the account. The actual data-covered drawdown is -0.32% only because the VVV revenge trade worked. Had it failed, the account would have been -$20k+ underwater. The simulator shows that disciplined stops would have prevented the largest losses but also would have forced the trader to exit positions before the VVV recovery. The account is profitable by accident, not design.
Open positions
Five positions are open with no stops in place:
- BTC long, 40x leverage, entry $79,335.70, unrealised +$9,269.88: Sized at 40x on the largest, most liquid instrument. No stop.
- ETH short, 25x leverage, entry $2,338.43, unrealised +$620.87: Directional short with no stop.
- SOL long, 20x leverage, entry $84.622, unrealised +$47,607.87: The largest unrealised winner. No stop.
- AVAX long, 10x leverage, entry $17.4366, unrealised -$20,795.97: Underwater position with no stop.
- DOGE long, 10x leverage, entry $0.155661, unrealised -$5,472.82: Underwater position with no stop.
Total unrealised PnL across open positions is +$30.6k, but the two losing positions total -$26.3k. None of the five positions has a stop order. The BTC and SOL positions are sized at 40x and 20x respectively on instruments with no demonstrated edge in the data covered.
Honest summary
- One trade accounts for 118% of profit. The VVV position recovered two prior losses and created the illusion of edge. Without it, the account is -$21k on 63 other trades.
- Position sizing is disconnected from edge. The largest losses (xyz:CL, xyz:BRENTOIL, xyz:MU) are sized 5–61x