Risk:reward compares what a trade risks against what it targets. Risk 20 pips to target 40 and you are trading 1:2 — every winner pays for two losers. This single ratio is why professionals can be wrong most of the time and still compound.
The forgiveness table
At 1:1 you need to win over half your trades just to beat costs. At 1:2, a 40% win rate is comfortably profitable. At 1:3, you can lose two of every three trades and still grow. The ratio buys you the right to be human.
The catch nobody advertises
R:R and win rate trade against each other. Fatter targets get hit less often; the market does not gift free expectancy. The real question is never "what R:R should I use?" but "what does MY setup's structure honestly offer?" — measured from real invalidation to real liquidity target, not drawn to make a screenshot look good.
Honest R:R vs fantasy R:R
Fantasy: shrinking the stop to inflate the ratio (stop gets swept), or projecting targets past every structural obstacle (price reverses at the first pool). Honest: stop beyond true invalidation, target in front of the obvious liquidity, ratio accepted as whatever those two facts produce. If the honest ratio is poor, the setup is poor — skip it.
Working minimums
Most P4 setups clear 1:2 to TP1's neighbourhood with structural targets beyond; day-trading systems below 1:1.5 need suspiciously high win rates to survive costs. Track your achieved R (not intended) in your journal — the gap between the two is usually where the money leaks.
Education only — not financial advice. Trading carries risk of loss; never trade money you cannot afford to lose.
