Bottom line up front
This account is -1.48% in the analysed window, down $762.33 on a starting balance of approximately $51,617. The headline obscures a catastrophic drawdown: the account peaked at $596,009 on 6 May 2026, then fell 98.57% to a trough of $2,059 on 11 March 2026 before recovering to close at $50,855. The single dominant pattern is uncontrolled position sizing on XYZ100 shorts combined with revenge trading and averaging down into losses. Fees are immaterial relative to the core problem: the account is losing money on the fundamental trade selection and risk management.
What the data shows
All meaningful activity is concentrated on XYZ100, which accounts for 70 of 72 closed episodes. The account is nominally profitable on win rate (51.39% overall, 52.86% on XYZ100), but the profit factor of 0.18 and expectancy of -$10.59 per trade reveal the true picture: average wins are $4.43 while average losses are -$26.47. This is a classic small-winner, large-loser distribution.
Long trades lost $191.90 despite a 56.41% win rate on that side, while short trades lost $570.44 on a 45.45% win rate. The short side is the primary damage vector. Five trades in the top-losses list each lost more than $62, with the largest loss at -$134.70 on 9 November 2025 (short XYZ100, entered 25151.22, exited 25219.92 in 1.42 hours). All five of these outsized losses are flagged as averaging-down episodes; the largest loss was 12.31 times the median loss size.
The account opened 5 additional episodes that remain unclosed at the window end, suggesting active exposure management or incomplete fill data. Gross fees paid total $137.26 against $620.21 in realised losses, so fees represent 22% of the loss magnitude but are not the primary driver of the drawdown.
The peak-to-trough cycle is severe and unexplained by the closed-trade record alone. The account reached $596,009 on 6 May 2026 and collapsed to $2,059 by 11 March 2026—a sequence that suggests either a catastrophic open position liquidation, a data ordering issue, or unrealised losses on a dominant holding that was eventually closed at extreme loss. The recovery to $50,855 by the window end indicates the account survived but remains deeply underwater relative to its peak.
Trade quality
Win rate of 51.39% is marginally above break-even, but profit factor of 0.18 means the account makes $0.18 in gross profit for every $1 lost. Expectancy of -$10.59 per trade is the operative metric: on average, each closed episode destroys value. The win/loss ratio of 0.17 confirms that winning trades are far smaller than losing trades in absolute dollar terms.
The max win streak of 6 and max loss streak of 4 suggest some clustering, but neither is long enough to indicate a systematic edge. Maker percentage of 96.29% indicates the account is predominantly providing liquidity, which is consistent with short-term scalping or grid-like behaviour, but the loss profile suggests the scalp entries are poorly timed or sized.
Post-mortems
Trade 1: XYZ100 short, 9 November 2025, 0.99 hours
Entered at 25225.54, exited at 25273.00, loss of -$98.20. This trade is flagged for averaging down, oversized loss (5.69× median), and revenge trading. It followed a previous loss of -$134.70 on the same coin. The structural stop distance was 0.44%, meaning the ATR-14 1h stop was placed just 0.44% away from entry, yet the trade moved against it by 47 basis points before being closed. This is a textbook revenge trade: larger notional ($40,058), tighter stop, and immediate re-entry after a larger loss.
Trade 2: XYZ100 long, 9–10 November 2025, 2.24 hours
Entered at 25286.03, exited at 25239.75, loss of -$86.17. Also flagged for averaging down, oversized loss (7.17× median), and revenge trading. Notional was $37,600. The structural stop was 0.49% away, yet the trade moved 46 basis points against entry before close. This follows the short loss above and represents a direction flip—a common revenge-trade signature. Both trades occurred within 24 hours of the -$134.70 loss on 9 November.
The two post-mortem trades together lost $184.37 in under 3 hours and both involved averaging into positions (19 and 14 add events respectively across the averaging-down episodes). The account was chasing losses with larger size and tighter stops, a high-probability path to account destruction.
What the risk simulator reveals
Under a 1% stop-loss rule applied historically, the account would have realised -$1,836.67 with a max drawdown of -9.22% and a win rate of 59.72%. Under a 2% rule, simulated loss would be -$3,673.34 with a max drawdown of -17.49%. Under a 4% rule, simulated loss would be -$7,346.67 with a max drawdown of -31.74%. All three scenarios stopped 5 episodes early due to data quality issues.
The simulator reveals that mechanical stops would have worsened the outcome in this window. This is not a recommendation to trade without stops; it indicates that the account's entries are so poorly timed that even tight stops would have been hit repeatedly on noise, while the account's actual behaviour—holding through adverse moves and averaging down—occasionally caught reversals that a strict stop would have prevented. The core issue is entry quality, not stop placement.
Open positions
No open positions at window close.
Honest summary
- Strength: Win rate above 50% and a 6-trade win streak demonstrate the account can identify directionally correct entries; the problem is sizing and loss management, not directional bias.
- Weakness: Profit factor of 0.18 and average loss 6× average win reveal a fundamental asymmetry in position sizing. The account sizes into winners at $4–$13 and into losers at $26–$135. This is inverted risk management.
- Weakness: Averaging down is endemic (19 events on the largest losing short, 14 on another). Combined with revenge trading (5 flagged episodes, all on XYZ100 within hours of prior losses), the account exhibits classic loss-chasing behaviour. The two post-mortem trades lost $184 in under 3 hours after a -$134.70 loss.
- Weakness: The peak-to-trough cycle of 98.57% suggests an uncontrolled open position or a series of cascading losses that the closed-trade record does not fully explain. Recovery to near starting balance masks the severity of the drawdown experienced.
- Data note: 242 days active but only 72 closed episodes suggests long idle periods or incomplete fill history. The 5 open episodes at window close are unexplained.