How many lots to trade so that being stopped out costs exactly what you decided it would, and not a pound more.
This is the calculation that decides whether an account survives a losing streak, and it is the one most reliably skipped.
The order matters: risk first, stop second, size last. Choosing a size and then placing a stop to justify it is the same arithmetic run backwards, and it produces a different answer every time.
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 risking 1% has $100 on the line. With a 25-pip stop on a pair worth $10 a pip, each lot risks $250, so the position is 0.40 lots.
Widen the stop to 80 pips (because volatility rose, or because the level that invalidates the idea is further away) and each lot now risks $800. The position falls to 0.125 lots.
Both trades risk $100. The second is a third of the size, and keeping it at 0.40 would have risked $320 instead: a 1% rule quietly running at 3.2%.
This works out the loss if the stop fills where you put it. In a gap or a fast market it fills where the next price is, and that can be materially worse.
Position sizing controls planned risk. It does not control slippage, and it does not survive a weekend gap on an oversized position.
There is no universal figure. The useful test is whether ten consecutive losses at your chosen size leaves an account you can still work with. At 1% that is under 10%, at 5% it is 40%.
No. It means the planned loss is about 1%. The position controlling that risk is usually far larger, because the stop distance rather than the position size defines the loss.
Then the trade is too big for the account at that stop distance. Either the stop needs to be tighter for a good reason, or this is not a trade you can take at this account size.
Down. Rounding up is a decision to exceed the limit you just set, taken by arithmetic rather than by you.