Thanks for the help. I think the idea of setting the stop loss at the point the trade is nullified is worth testing. I kind of do it backwards though. I set my stop loss in regards to where i expect to take profit. I will need to learn to analyse when a trade is getting nullified. Maybe this could be when it touches a large moving average (200) which would indicate a change in trend.
good thinking
that’s even one you can use without testing, because it’s kind of axiomatic to set a stop-loss at the level at which you’ll know, if the price reaches it, that the entry was “bad” and you don’t want to be in the trade
you need to determine where that is by testing, though (and with reference to price movements, not to your profit target!)
sounds like you’re already ready to change your mind about that approach, though - and that’s a good thing
good luck
3 Likes
it all depends on things like if my last Swing High/Low is close or far for me to put my stop loss in there, or where is the next support/resistance or PRZ area?.. so my R:R is varied based on the market conditions , but i will NEVER take a trade with a R:R lower than 1:1 , NEVER , and also a fixed R:R really doesnt make sense(in me opnion) 
3 Likes
you must think that all the institutional and professional traders making their livings and fat bonuses, over the years and decades, with their standard ratios of 1:05 or 1:0.75 are doing something wrong, then? if so, i hope that belief works out well for you!
1 Like
Beyond an important, widely utilised, moving average would be much better than when just touching it. Particularly if that moving average forms part of your original entry criteria. Another example might be the other end of a signal candle that generated the entry decision. @Shrezinc mentions another sensible area beyond a recent swing high/low, again, if that approach is part of your entry strategy.
These are IMHO good examples of where to place a stop since they are all identified areas supporting the reason for having entered the trade in the first place: a direction reversal, bounce of S/R, etc. If those types of criteria are breached then the trade has failed and should be exited as soon as possible and wait for the next. i.e. cutting losses short, running the winners. But again, once these areas are defined it is possible to check the R:R and, if it does not make sense, then ignore the trade.
This is again very sensible, but not necessarily as a “golden rule” for all traders, but because it demonstrates your personal strong application of discipline to your personal method and approach. This is also very important. It is pointless designing and even backtesting a strategy based on more than 1:1 and then slipping into taking other types of risk scenario.
But R:R is not the only way to evaluate a trade. In theory, one should always have in mind the maximum amount of money in absolute terms that one is prepared to risk on any one trade. For example, you could start with a trade quality evaluation system which defines the positive expectancy of a potential trade in numerical terms and then only select high probability trades. Then one can assess the target and stop areas in terms of pips and then calculate the position size such that the stop distance represents a total loss within your limitations. In this case, the trade success expectancy is more crucial than the specific R:R, i,e, the win/loss ratio.
The point is that the trade setup, its expectancy and the identified areas for targets and stops are sensible. In time, I think most traders learn to assess these factors intuitively from previous experience much in the same way as we drive a car.We judge traffic conditions, speed, position, direction, gear selection, etc, all simultaneously and without just focusing on just one of these.
3 Likes
I think 1: 2 risk-reward should be maintained in every trade. The profitability ratio is in the comfort zone.
1 Like
A 1:1 risk to reward ratio can work if you are already doing good in the market. But if not, I think you should at least use 1:3 to manage risk/reward more directly through the use of stop-loss orders derivatives like put options.
1 Like
Nah rrr to me is just a fantasy,i cant control how much to win for jm just a human.setting ratio is just self-righteous
Its a fallacy amongst traders that you need a big r:r to make money trading. Yes, sometimes you can see a good entry set-up which seems to offer clear sailing for your price all the way to a TP level 3 or 4 or more times further away from entry than your stop-loss. But the further away it is, the less likely price will ever get there. And the more likely price will not get there in one steady run either, it will more probably move in a series of runs and pull-backs that will just whittle away your belief in the ambitious TP.
In fact, a modest actual r:r (forget the fantastical target r:r’s) is much more achievable and can still bring you good returns. If you only get 1:1.4, you will be potentially making good money.
1 Like
I prefer to use at least 1:2 risk to reward ratio
2 Likes
The only accurate r:r is the outcome r:r, not the plan r:r.
So when you’re entering a specific trade, you can hope for whatever ratio you like. But what counts is the actual r:r from closed positions after 100 trades.
2 Likes
Agreed, I keep track it on weekly though i focus to keep the risk to around 5% pips of the reward.
1:2 ratio would be my prefer ration. But as Tommor mention above, the outcome r:r is way more accurate as it clearly show the consistency in your trading stratergy.
Frankly speaking traders have to calculate the ratio in compliance with current market situation. So, if I see that the market is highly volatile, then probably my ratio in this particular day will be 1:0,5 or even less, because risk management is a very difficult thing. If I see that everything is okay on the market and moreover after a proper technical analysis I found a good entry point, I can open a position with 1:5, where 5 is the percentage of the reward. For example, if the position opened with 15$, then I plan to make up to 60-75$ and this is a huge risk, because I still have only 15$ for losing this position.
Well, I believe that it’s kinda good risk management strategy. However, it also has its own drawbacks, for example, low payback. I mean you will certainly earn less money if you will try to comply with this strategy. You will lose 10$ and then you will earn it back. In this case you might face stagnancy in your development as a trader.
I prefer 1:3 risk reward ratio and this thing seems to me the most profitablke for the most part of traders, however you have to analyze a lot in order to understand when the price might break the levels for example of support and resistance in order to let you earn money according to this strategy.
if you aim for 2:1 , you only have to be right 34% to stay in the game.
The longer you are in the game the more likely you are to make money. 1:1 just seems too much of a quick way to ruin
Learn to scale, use multiple take profit areas, adjust your stoploss to breakeven once TP1 is hit and add to your position once TP1 is achieved.
Scaling your confirmed winners is one thing that separates smart money from retailers
It’s just unbelievable, the rubbish that’s posted here in thread after thread after thread. Obviously a lot of it is just junk repeatedly regurgitated by bots (and obviously enough that’s one of the major ways that blatant misinformation and shockingly bad advice are continually perpetuated and reinforced in forums that don’t remove the bots), but knowing how potentially helpful the posts above by MattyMoney, SovoS, tommor and flamingoproxy are, I posted a “recommendation link” to this thread, earlier today, in a new thread asking about risk/reward.
Seeing now all the nonsense that’s been added to this thread since I originally saved the link, myself, I’m wondering whether I’ve done the right thing. It’s honestly SO difficult to try to help anyone, here, that I often wonder whether it’s worthwhile even trying at all. Yet another thread that was once very helpful to people learning has been filled with spambot-junk. 
1 Like
I gave up on forex for the last couple years to focus on my career. The last thing I was working on was scaling up trades. It’s makes back testing very tedious. If you catch the right wave you could make serious profit scaling up.
1 Like
I prefer at least a 1:2 ratio because it acknowledges the possibility of losses. In my opinion, trading isn’t solely about winning on charts but also about effective risk management, which accommodates occasional losses.