The trade itself was fine. The setup was clean. The level was solid. The mistake was doing it with 4 contracts instead of 2, because I was so close to passing that I forgot how I'd gotten there.
The setup.
$50K eval. Profit target was $3,000. I was at $2,720 — needed $280 more to pass.
The setup was a 5M breaker block after a clean stop raid on the previous day low. Textbook. With 2 contracts and a 15-point stop, the trade risked $600 to make ~$1,000+ to target.
But I thought: "If I take 4 contracts, I only need this to work for ~5 points to lock in the eval." So I doubled the size.
What I did wrong.
I changed my position sizing rules because the trade looked easy. Not because the setup was better. Not because the level was stronger. Just because the math of "almost passed" made me lazy.
$50K account blown in 4 minutes
From $2,720 in profit to below the trailing drawdown limit. Same setup with 2 contracts would have lost $600 — manageable. With 4, it was account-ending.
What I changed.
Position size comes from the math, not the goal. Daily loss limit ÷ stop distance ÷ contract value = contracts. That's it. There's no "I'm close to passing so I'll size up." There's no "easy money so let me press." Size only goes up when account size goes up.
- Never change your size for emotional reasons
- Never change your size because you're "almost there"
- Never change your size because a trade "looks easy"
EASIEST ARE THE ONES
THAT BLOW ACCOUNTS.
Position size doesn't care how close you are.
Markets don't reward you for being near a profit target. The same trade with 2x the size has 2x the risk — the setup didn't become "easier" because you were almost passed. Discipline doesn't break for "this one trade."
// — HIGO
Don't make the same one.
Real trade reviews, daily setups, and the rules that came from losses like this — in the premium Discord.