What a run of losses leaves of an account, and the gain on what remains that it takes to get back to level, which is always more than the loss.
Losses and the gains that undo them are not symmetrical, and the gap widens fast. Lose 10% and you need 11.1% back. Lose 50% and you need 100%.
This is the strongest argument there is for small position sizes, and it needs no persuasion: only arithmetic.
A model, not a quote. Every figure here comes from what a broker publishes or what you type, and real fills, spreads and rates move.
A $10,000 account losing 1% per trade, ten times running, ends at $9,044: down 9.6%, needing 10.6% to recover. Unpleasant and entirely survivable.
At 5% per trade the same ten losses leave $5,987: down 40%, needing 67% back. At 10% they leave $3,487, down 65%, needing 187%.
Same strategy, same ten trades, same market. The only variable was position size, and it is the difference between a bad month and an account that cannot mathematically recover.
Real losing streaks are uneven, and a stop that slips or a gap that jumps the level makes an individual loss larger than planned.
Treat the output as the best case for a given risk setting rather than the worst.
Because it is calculated on a smaller base. Losing 50% of $10,000 leaves $5,000, and getting back to $10,000 from there is a 100% gain.
It needs 25% back, which is a substantial run for most strategies. Whether it is bad depends on whether your method has historically produced 25% inside a reasonable period.
No. It models an uninterrupted run, which is the case worth planning for. Wins in between reduce the damage and do not change the arithmetic of the losses.
More than you expect. A 60% win rate produces a run of five losses reasonably often across a few hundred trades, and a run of ten is not remarkable.