Bottom line up front
This account is profitable in the data covered: +0.66% on the starting balance, realising $828 on $124.6k deployed. Only the most recent public fills are visible. The data-covered peak of $125,447 and data-covered trough of $124,622 represent a -0.14% data-covered drawdown. The headline obscures a trader executing 435 closed episodes in under 30 hours with a 46.4% win rate, 1.76 profit factor, and $1.90 expectancy per trade. The core story is structural: fees consume 24.8% of gross PnL, and the account is being carried by a genuine edge on INTC (both cash and xyz venues, +$481.79 combined) and EWY (+$143.25), while systematic losses on xyz:HOOD (-$78.79) and xyz:BRENTOIL (-$24.86) are being masked. Behavioural red flags—five revenge trades, five FOMO re-entries, and five oversized losers—suggest the trader is chasing losses rather than executing a disciplined system.
What the data shows
The data covered spans 30 hours of trading across 469 total episodes (435 closed, 34 open). Realised PnL is $1,153.65 gross; after $285.81 in fees, net PnL is $867.84. The trader is profitable, but fees are eating nearly a quarter of the win. Long and short are nearly balanced: longs contributed $418.56 (46.3% win rate), shorts $409.66 (46.6% win rate). This symmetry is misleading. The real money is concentrated: INTC (cash and xyz combined) accounts for $481.79 of the $1,153.65 gross realised PnL—42% of all profits. EWY adds $143.25. Everything else is noise or loss. xyz:HOOD is a clear drag at -$78.79 across 11 episodes (36.4% win rate). xyz:BRENTOIL lost $24.86 across 21 episodes (38.1% win rate). The trader has identified no edge on these instruments but continues to trade them.
The data-covered peak balance of $125,447 occurred early; the data-covered trough of $124,622 represents a -0.14% data-covered drawdown. This is not a volatile account in the visible window. However, the behavioural flags reveal high-frequency churn: five averaging-down episodes, five FOMO re-entries, and five revenge trades flagged. The trader is not sitting on winners or cutting losers cleanly. On 2026-05-06 at 19:22, the trader averaged down on a short HOOD position from 12.9 shares to 50.7 shares at nearly identical prices (79.055 and 79.053), losing $0.86. Minutes later, at 19:28, the trader added to a long US500 position five times in two minutes, averaging from 0.007 to 2.618 contracts, losing $0.32. These are not trades; they are panic adds.
Trade quality
Win rate of 46.44% with a profit factor of 1.76 and expectancy of $1.90 per trade. The win/loss ratio is 2.03: average winner is $9.49, average loser is -$4.67. This is a positive expectancy system, but the edge is thin. A 46% win rate means the trader is wrong more often than right; the edge comes from letting winners run ($9.49 average) and cutting losers faster (-$4.67 average). However, the data shows the opposite behaviour: the five oversized losers range from -$11.96 to -$77.00 (6.87× to 44.25× the median loss), while the five top wins are $54–$150. The trader is not cutting losers; the trader is sizing into losers and occasionally getting lucky on re-entries.
The max win streak is 9; the max loss streak is 13. A 13-trade losing streak on a 46% win rate is not an outlier, but it is a stress test the account has already failed once. Gross volume is $5.25M across 435 closed trades, implying an average notional of $12,000 per trade. Fees of $285.81 on $5.25M volume imply a blended fee rate of 5.4 basis points, which is reasonable for Hyperliquid, but the trader is paying this on every round-trip. With a $1.90 expectancy per trade, the trader needs to execute roughly 150 trades just to cover fees.
Post-mortems
xyz:HOOD short, 2026-05-06, entry 78.26, exit 78.96, -$77.00 (oversized loser, flagged).
The trader shorted 69.7 shares at 78.26, max notional $5,460. The structural stop (ATR 14 1h) was 1.84% away; the actual move against the position was 1.3% (MAE). The trader held through the stop and exited at 78.96, realising a -$77 loss. This is the single largest loss in the data covered. The position was sized at 4.4× the median loss. No stop was in place. The trade lasted 13 minutes. This is not a trade; it is a panic short that the trader refused to exit until it had bled $77.
cash:EWY short, 2026-05-07, entry 182.51, exit 179.61, -$25.42 (oversized loser, revenge trade).
Opened at 2026-05-07 19:15:57, immediately after a -$20.23 loss on cash:META. The trader shorted EWY at 182.51, max notional $14,191, and exited at 179.61 after 1.6 hours for -$25.42. The structural stop was 1.77% away; the actual MAE was -0.53%. The trader had a 1.15% MFE (mark-to-favourable-excursion), meaning the position was profitable at one point, but the trader held and took a loss. This is a revenge trade: the trader lost on META, immediately opened a larger position on EWY (higher notional), and held it into a loss. The pattern is clear: after a loss, the trader increases size and chases.
What the risk simulator reveals
Under a 1% stop-loss rule applied historically to all 435 closed episodes, the account would have realised $8,022.56 (gross of fees) with a -1.69% data-covered max drawdown and a 51.87% win rate. Under a 2% rule, $16,045.12 and -3.17% data-covered drawdown. Under a 4% rule, $32,090.24 and -5.61% data-covered drawdown. These are gross-of-fees simulations. The actual account realised $828.22 with a -0.14% data-covered drawdown. The simulator is telling you that disciplined stops would have doubled, quadrupled, or octupled the account. The trader is not using stops. Five of the five open positions currently have no stop in place.
Open positions
Five positions are open:
- xyz:TSLA short, entry 397.449, leverage 4x, unrealised +$0.48. No stop. Notional ~$1,590.
- **xyz:NVDA long, entry 207.16, leverage 4x, unrealised