Independent provider directory
The method What good risk looks like Practical guides Questions See the measured version
Pillar three

A drawdown limit you obey

Returns are the number traders brag about; drawdown is the number that decides whether they survive. A sound approach names the loss at which it stops and reviews — and respects the arithmetic that makes deep losses so hard to undo.

The recovery arithmetic

Drawdown is the deepest peak-to-trough fall in an account over a period, and it is the most honest figure in trading because it cannot be spun. A return of any size means little until you know how far the account fell to earn it. The reason the deep falls matter so much is arithmetic: the gain required to recover grows faster than the loss itself.

A 10% lossneeds +11% to get back to even
A 20% lossneeds +25% to get back to even
A 30% lossneeds +43% to get back to even
A 40% lossneeds +67% to get back to even
A 50% lossneeds +100% to get back to even

That is why a drawdown limit is not timidity. Naming the peak-to-trough loss at which you stop trading and review — rather than push harder to win it back — is what keeps a normal bad run from compounding into the kind of hole that is mathematically hard to climb out of. A strategy quoted without a drawdown figure is hiding the one number that tells you whether its returns were survivable.

A worked example: why the ladder steepens

An illustrative example, not a specific recommendation, to make the recovery arithmetic concrete. Start at £10,000. A 10% drawdown leaves £9,000, and the climb back needs £1,000 on a £9,000 base — about +11.1%. So far the loss and the recovery look almost symmetric. Now go deeper:

£10,000 −20% → £8,000 → needs +25.0% to get back to £10,000 £10,000 −30% → £7,000 → needs +42.9% £10,000 −50% → £5,000 → needs +100.0% (you must double what is left) £10,000 −75% → £2,500 → needs +300.0% (quadruple it)

The gap between the loss and the required gain widens with every step down, because each percentage point of recovery is earned on a smaller base. That is the whole case for a drawdown limit in one table: a 20% line is a setback you trade through; a 50% line is a different account on a different planet, needing a 100% run just to break even. Capping the depth is not caution — it is staying on the gentle part of the curve where recovery is realistic.

How a graded, measured record makes drawdown legible

You can only respect a drawdown limit if you can see the drawdown, which means the record has to show its losing calls, not just march the winners past you. The measured system here publishes a continuous record — across 2026 its four models posted 690 graded calls at a 70% win rate — with the losing calls left in and each call's grade and levels fixed at publication. That is what separates a return you can gawk at from a risk profile you can actually weigh.

What a bad version of drawdown discipline looks like

The fragile approach treats drawdown as something to feel rather than a number to obey. It has no line at all, so a 20% dip becomes a 35% dip becomes a hole the recovery curve can no longer flatter — each loss met not with a pause but with a larger bet to win it back faster, which is exactly how the depth runs away. It quotes returns with the drawdown removed, presenting a +1,200% headline as if the path there were smooth. And it confuses a high win rate for safety, forgetting that a strategy can win most of its trades and still be ruined by a handful of oversized losers if the depth is never capped. The honest version is duller and survives: a stated worst-case line, obeyed; the drawdown shown next to the return; and the losing stretches left in the record so the risk profile is legible rather than airbrushed.

A return quoted without a drawdown beside it is hiding the only number that says whether those returns were survivable. The deeper the hole, the steeper the climb — which is why the discipline is to never dig one.

Keep reading