Risk toolkit
The size is the part that decides
Most accounts are not ruined by choosing the wrong stock. They are ruined by holding four times too much of the right one when the stop finally gets hit. These are the three calculations that make that visible before the trade rather than after it, and they run on numbers you supply.
This tool has no symbol field on purpose. It works on numbers you supply, so it stays arithmetic you commissioned rather than a position anyone here picked for you.
Position size
Enter what your account holds, how much of it you are prepared to lose on this one trade, and where the stop sits. The size follows from those three numbers.
Fill the stop from an ATR distance
2.0 ATR below the entry is 96.00. Your ATR figure, not one we fetched.
At this size, a fill at your stop costs 248.00 — the budget your inputs authorised was 250.00. One more share would exceed it, so the count rounds down and leaves 2.00 unspent.
What the trade returned, in R
R is the result divided by the risk that was taken to get it. It is the one performance number that compares across position sizes and account sizes — a 400 dollar gain means nothing until you know whether it was made risking 100 or 4,000.
Entry 100, stop 96, exit 112 on a long is +3.00R — 744.00 gained at the size above.
These are calculations on the numbers in the boxes above, which start from example values until you change them. They describe what those inputs imply — not what any position is worth, not whether to take one, and not what any market will do. QuantZ is a research and analytics platform, not a registered investment adviser.
Getting back is harder than going down
A drawdown and its recovery are not the same size. Losing a third of an account needs a 50% gain to undo; losing four fifths needs 400%. The curve is convex, which is the arithmetic reason a drawdown limit is worth more than a profit target — every further percent down costs more than the last one to climb back.
| Drawdown | Gain needed to recover |
|---|---|
| −5% | +5.3% |
| −10% | +11.1% |
| −20% | +25.0% |
| −33% | +49.3% |
| −50% | +100% |
| −65% | +186% |
| −80% | +400% |
| −90% | +900% |
How long a losing streak your risk setting survives
Losses compound rather than add: each one is a percentage of what is left, so twenty consecutive 2% losses take an account down 33.2%, not 40%. The column below is the number of losses in a row it takes to reach a 25% drawdown at each risk setting — a fact about the arithmetic of your own account, not a prediction about how often losses arrive.
| Risk per trade | Losses in a row to −25% |
|---|---|
| 0.5% | 58 |
| 1.0% | 29 |
| 2.0% | 15 |
| 3.0% | 10 |
| 5.0% | 6 |
What this does not know
It does not know what you are trading, what it is worth, or whether the stop you chose is in a sensible place. It cannot see your other positions, so the risk it reports is the risk of this trade alone and not of your book. It assumes the stop fills at the price you typed, which a gap through it will not honour — the loss in that case is larger than every number on this page, and no arithmetic here can bound it.
Our own Momentum Score has not been through this arithmetic either. What is published about it is the absence itself — that it has never been tested against forward returns — under how the score is computed.