OptiNod Academy

Breakeven stops and partial profits — Reducing losses also means missing some profit

Breakeven stops and partial profits change results in different ways. This article counts breakeven trades separately and compares the losses avoided and the profit reduced under the same conditions.

Published September 28, 2026 · Content updated October 1, 2026

To reduce trades that were profitable and ended as losses, you have to close earlier by the same measure. Breakeven stops and partial profits are rules where you must count the loss avoided and the profit missed together.

The BTC trade entered on May 16, 2024 went past +1R and then fell back to the initial stop. If the stop had been moved to the entry price after reaching +1R, this trade would have ended at breakeven. Looking at this case alone, using a breakeven stop seems obviously better.

Conversely, some trades retest the entry price and then rise to the target. In such trades a breakeven stop makes you miss the profit. The same is true of taking half off at +1R. Part of the profit is locked in first, but the amount received from the later rise is smaller.

In this comparison the two rules were computed separately. The breakeven stop was added to a fixed 3R target, and the partial profit was added to a 3×ATR trailing stop. So do not read the numbers below as performance with both rules applied at once. This is the common BTC daily sample, excluding commissions and slippage.

**Different price paths after a breakeven exit**The trade entered in May 2024 on the left fell to the initial stop after the breakeven exit. The trade entered in December 2020 on the right rose again after the breakeven exit. The same rule has both cases where a loss was avoided and cases where profit was missed.

Count breakeven trades separately from losing trades

With only the 3R target, 62 trades split into 25 winners and 37 losers. Adding the +1R breakeven stop gives 65 trades: 21 winners, 18 breakeven and 26 losers. The breakeven stop turned some trades into 0R, and because the holding periods changed, new entries also appeared.

If you mix the 18 breakeven trades into the losses and average them, you get an "average loss of -0.57R". But the loss averaged over only the 26 trades with actually negative results is -0.97R. That is nearly the same as the base rule's -0.98R. The key change is not that the size of each loss shrank much, but that more trades ended at breakeven.

The win rate fell from 40.3% to 32.3%, because breakeven trades are not counted as wins. When looking at this figure, show the breakeven share next to the win rate so it is clear what changed.

Compare the loss avoided and the target missed on the same entries

Applying only the original 3R target, without the breakeven stop, to the 18 trades that ended at breakeven, 14 would end at the -1R stop and 4 would reach the +3R target. Comparing only these 18 trades, the loss avoided is 14R and the target profit missed is 12R.

The May 16, 2024 trade ended at 0R on June 11 with the breakeven stop, and at -1R on June 24 without it. The December 31, 2020 trade is the opposite case, which rose after the breakeven exit and reached the original target. Rather than counting the whole highest price after the breakeven exit as "missed profit", it is more accurate to compare where the original rule would actually have exited.

For the strategy as a whole, the average result per trade was +0.62R for the base 3R target and +0.57R with the breakeven stop added. This difference reflects not only the 18 trades above but also the changed set of entries. Keep the effect on the same entries separate from the result for the whole strategy.

When the target is changed to 2R, the average result with the breakeven stop rose from +0.13R to +0.27R. The direction in which a breakeven stop raises or lowers expectancy can depend on the exit rule used with it.

Partial profits raised the win rate but cut the average result substantially

With the 3×ATR trailing stop, if you take half off at +1R, then even if the remaining half ends at the initial stop of -1R the total is 0R. The +0.5R locked in first and the -0.5R of the remaining half offset each other. This calculation assumes fills at the set prices and no costs. With gaps or commissions, the actual total can be a loss.

In this sample partial profits raised the win rate from 37.7% to 50.8%. But the average result per trade fell by about 44%, from +0.61R to +0.34R. This cannot be explained as a change of the same degree as the breakeven stop's +0.62R to +0.57R.

The difference shows clearly in large trades. The trade entered on January 9, 2023 was +8.35R with the full position on the trailing stop, and +4.67R with the half exit added. The February 8, 2024 trade also fell from +6.12R to +3.56R. This is because the remaining rise was received with half the size.

**Holding the same rise with half the size**In the trade entered on January 9, 2023, holding the full position gives +8.35R and a half exit at +1R gives +4.67R. The profit locked in early and the later reduction in size are both shown.

In the trailing sample, where a few large profits carry a high share, the effect of reducing the profit of those trades was large. The fact that the win rate rose alone does not make partial profits better.

Check what the drawdown actually computed

Computing the maximum drawdown from cumulative results that add up the R results of closed trades in order, the 3R target gives -6.0R, and adding the breakeven stop gives -5.0R. The trailing stop gives -6.0R, and adding the half exit gives -5.4R.

This is a closed-trade drawdown. It does not reflect how much unrealized profit was given back from the peak during a hold, or how much the account balance fell intraday. When comparing maximum drawdown, first check that the calculation basis is the same.

Both the breakeven stop and partial profits reduced the closed-trade drawdown in this sample, but the changes in average result they paid for it were different. Which change to accept should be decided by looking at average result and drawdown together. Do not treat a single past drawdown as settling the future maximum loss or the probability of ruin.

Compare one rule at a time first

Below are the conditions of the two comparisons used in this calculation.

Breakeven stop comparison: The initial stop is -1R and the target is +3R. When the high reaches +1R, the stop is raised to the entry price from the next bar.
Partial profit comparison: Take 50% at +1R and manage the remaining 50% with the 3×ATR trailing stop. No separate breakeven stop is attached.
Order within a bar: The assumption is that if the low after the open hits the stop first, that day's partial profit is not filled.
Record: Split trades into winners, breakeven and losers, and compare each rule's average result and closed-trade drawdown.
Next comparison: To use both rules together, compute that combination separately. Do not add up separately computed effects to forecast it.

If the exit criteria change from trade to trade, it is hard to compare which condition changed the result. First fix one condition and record it, then check whether the loss avoided or the profit reduced was larger.

Check the exits of your own strategy

Upload a TradingView strategy trade list (CSV) to calculate the MFE and MAE of each trade and the profit by exit signal. No sign-in is needed to analyze.

Analyze my trade history Explore an example report

Martingale — A Betting Progression That Stacks Your Point of Ruin Into a Single Slot of the Account The smooth, rising equity curve of a Martingale does not raise your win rate. It is just the result of deferring losses and piling them into the one losing streak where the bet has grown largest. This piece lays out how a structure that grows the bet on every loss leads to ruin in the market's tail distribution, and frames the Anti-Martingale setup — the same progression flipped to the profit side — with a proven BTC example.
Scaling In (DCA) — The Lower Your Average, the More Total R You Can Lose at Once An average price you brought down by averaging in is a loss you have deferred across several added entries instead of taking once with a stop. We work through how, the lower the average goes, the more total R a single exit can cost, using verified BTC and LUNA cases.
Risk of Ruin: Position Sizing Determines Account Survival Even with the same win rate and reward-to-risk ratio, risk of ruin rises nonlinearly as the percentage risked per trade increases. A strategy can have positive expectancy, but oversizing can push the account into an unrecoverable drawdown after a single losing streak.