A worked example
This is the sample account that ships with Ledgerline. Every number below is computed by the same engine your own trades run through.
Above: balance after each closed trade. Below: how far under the high-water mark the account sat, day by day.
Losers cluster around −1R because the stops were respected. Winners run to two and three. That asymmetry, not the hit rate, is what puts the account ahead — and it is why the overview leads with profit factor rather than win rate.
Mid-June, the account lost fifteen trades running and gave back 14% from its high. Nothing was broken; a 44% strategy produces a run like that regularly. Knowing it already happened is what stops you abandoning a working method the next time it does.
$2,525 in costs against $5,007 net. Any edge measured before fees is a fiction, which is why costs are subtracted before the R-multiple is computed rather than reported separately at the bottom.
Breaker and BOS retest lost money across 56 trades. They were profitable in memory because the wins were memorable. The table does not have that problem.
The table this exists for
This account made money over 197 trades. Two of its five setups lost money the whole time. Without grouping, both keep getting traded — and the profitable ones keep paying for them.
Look at the win rates before the P&L. The setup with the highest win rate is not the one making the most money. That gap is the reason average R is the column that matters.
See the whole account →By setup
197 closed trades · 3 months
| Setup | Trades | Win | Avg R | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liquidity sweep | 51 | 54.9% | +0.84R | +$4,267 |
| FVG | 38 | 55.3% | +0.42R | +$1,606 |
| Order block | 52 | 42.3% | +0.11R | +$558 |
| BOS retest | 33 | 33.3% | −0.17R | −$576 |
| Breaker | 23 | 26.1% | −0.37R | −$848 |
Sample account · figures net of fees
Import a few months of fills and find out what. Free for the first fifty trades, and you can export everything back out.
Start your journal