This is exactly the problem. Someone has a shower thought, does some basic arithmetic, and presents it as if achieving these statistics were trivial.
Actual math ⬇️
A 40% win rate can make you disgustingly rich.
Math doesn't lie.
Win rate: 40%.
R:R ratio: 1:2.
Trades per month: 30.
Risk per trade: 1%.
You have a $100K funded account.
Losses per month: 18 (-$18,000).
Wins per month: 12 (+$24,000).
Net monthly income: +$6,000.
And... you can scale a lot more from there...
To $200K, $500K, and even $1M in funded accounts.
Trading is brutal, but it makes you fucking rich.
Trading is not easy. You’re competing in one of the most competitive markets in the world. Stop treating a hypothetical expectancy calculation as evidence that making money is easy.
Posts like this make trading look like a simple equation where you just choose a 40% win rate and 2R. You don’t. Those are the outputs of an edge, not inputs you get to select.
The difficult part is actually producing a stable 40% win rate at 2R over hundreds or thousands of trades.
Especially in discretionary trading, you cannot simply assume those statistics will persist indefinitely.
At a 2R reward-to-risk ratio, your theoretical break-even win rate is 33.33%. In reality, it’s slightly higher after commissions, fees and slippage.
A 40% win rate at 2R produces an expectancy of +0.20R per trade before costs.
with a discretionary approach over a long time. Claims like these are what is making everyone today so damn blinded by the industry. TRADING IS NOT EASY. You are competing with the best of the best that on top of that have way better data then you.
Ill tattoo "ICT" on my body if you actually show us a proper broker statement from a regulated broker (no photoshopping yk what I mean. And Ill priase ur concepts to eternity