A 1:3 Risk:Reward ratio is only 17% probability of winning. You'll lose more often than a 1:1 which has a 50% probability of winning. This is exactly what your bucket shop wants you to do.

The least profitable strategies always always start off with a high Reward/Risk, followed by strategies that tell you where to place your stops at (below swing low, above swing highs). Pretty much everything that is taught on the most popular ...

Exactly. Here's from BabyPips: "If you give yourself a 3:1 reward-to-risk ratio, you have a significantly greater chance of ending up profitable in the long run." Tell me a broker didn't pay them to post that as part of their Babypips School. It's ...

Correct

I mean trader statistics. I haven't seen a profitable account below 40% win rate this year.

Can I see that trader's statistics? How would one profit from losing 97% of their trades?

To risk:reward 1:2 and still have more than 50% win rate is extremely hard to do. Out of top 10 live accounts this year on FF, with more than 10 trades, only 1 has a 1:2 R:R and more than 50% win-rate: url

More profits more often. Higher the R-multiple, the exponentially longer time spent in trade. A 1:1 will be 4x shorter on average than a 1:4, making more profits with less risk and variation.

To clarify for new traders: a 1:0.5 R:R has 75% win expectancy. You need to win 67% of the time to breakeven. a 1:0.9 R:R has 55.5% win expectancy. You need to win 52.6% to breakeven. a 1:1 R:R has 50% win expectancy. You need to win 50% to ...

There's so much incorrect info in here. A 1:1 will always be profitable at >50%. Your 1:3 R:R requires you to win 25% of the trades just to breakeven.. when the expected win rate is only 17%. It's impossible to win 50% of trades with a 1:3 ...

Exactly. There is so much bad math in this thead. Running 50% win rate on a 1:3 (25% expected), you'll rule the world in a couple years. The higher the R-multiple above 1, the more inconsistent the distribution of losses will be. A 1:5 R:R has only ...

2nd this. Current price (tight spread) is the price at equilibrium. Historic prices have no influence on future price.

Just sucks. FF is paid to promote misinformation. I just had a broker FX course on how they pay Forex sites to spread incorrect info in exchange for payment. We won't be able to have a real discussion.. or else this will end up in Rookie Discussion.

Not really. I had the same stats with a 1:1 RR. Can you show me an entry criteria that would lose more than it wins? Bc I can inverse that and there's the edge.

Just sell high and buy low relative.. . A weekly swing high/low works. Or one of my most consistent levels is retail stop zones for entry.