What risk/reward do you need for your win rate? (break-even table)
The minimum reward-to-risk ratio that breaks even at a given win rate is
(1 − win rate) ÷ win rate. At a 40% win rate you need winners averaging 1.5
times your losers; at 30%, 2.33 times; at 50%, 1 times — before fees, which
push every figure up.
This page is the lookup version of that question: find your win rate, read off the ratio you need, then adjust for costs. If you want the reasoning for why win rate and reward/risk have to be read together, that is covered in expectancy vs win rate. Here the focus is the numbers.
The table
Break-even reward/risk, before costs. R is reward divided by risk, where risk is the distance from entry to stop — see what is an R multiple.
| Win rate | Minimum R to break even | As risk : reward |
|---|---|---|
| 20% | 4.00 | 1 : 4.00 |
| 25% | 3.00 | 1 : 3.00 |
| 30% | 2.33 | 1 : 2.33 |
| 35% | 1.86 | 1 : 1.86 |
| 40% | 1.50 | 1 : 1.50 |
| 45% | 1.22 | 1 : 1.22 |
| 50% | 1.00 | 1 : 1.00 |
| 55% | 0.82 | 1 : 0.82 |
| 60% | 0.67 | 1 : 0.67 |
| 65% | 0.54 | 1 : 0.54 |
| 70% | 0.43 | 1 : 0.43 |
Read it as a floor. At exactly these ratios, the strategy makes nothing over many trades; it needs to do better than the figure in the middle column to have any positive expectancy at all.
The risk/reward calculator computes the same thing in the other direction: give it an entry, stop and target, and it returns the win rate that setup needs to break even.
Why this matters now
Most people know their approximate win rate before they know anything else about their trading, because it is the easiest number to feel. The table turns that number into a requirement you can check against your records: are my average winners actually larger than the figure for my win rate?
If your journal says you win 45% of trades and your average winner is 1.1R, you are below the 1.22 line. That is a concrete, checkable conclusion — not a feeling about whether things are going well.
How it actually works
Break-even means the average win exactly pays for the average loss. With a win
rate p, a win of R and a loss of 1:
p × R = (1 − p) × 1
R = (1 − p) ÷ pTurned around, the break-even win rate for a given R is 1 ÷ (1 + R), which is
the form the calculator and the R-multiple article use.
Two assumptions are buried in it:
- Every win is a full R and every loss is a full 1R. Real results are distributions. Use your average realised win and average realised loss in R, not the planned ones — partial exits and moved stops both pull realised R away from plan.
- No costs. Every trade pays fees on entry and exit, and usually some slippage. That is the next section, and it changes the answer more than people expect.
Adjusting for fees
Express the round-trip cost of a trade as a fraction of 1R and call it c. A
win then nets R − c and a loss costs 1 + c. Break-even becomes:
p × (R − c) = (1 − p) × (1 + c)
R = (1 − p + c) ÷ pSo costs add c ÷ p to the required ratio — and they hurt low win rates most,
because the cost is paid on every trade but only recovered on the winners.
To estimate c: round-trip fees are roughly twice your per-side fee rate, and
1R is your stop distance, both as a percentage of price.
c ≈ (2 × fee rate per side) ÷ stop distanceWith an illustrative fee of 0.05% per side (use your own from your venue’s fee page), a 2% stop gives c ≈ 0.05R; a 1% stop, 0.10R; a 0.5% stop, 0.20R; a 0.25% stop, 0.40R. Tighter stops make costs a bigger share of risk — the reason tight stops can cost more.
Minimum R including costs
| Win rate | c = 0 | c = 0.05R | c = 0.10R | c = 0.20R |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20% | 4.00 | 4.25 | 4.50 | 5.00 |
| 25% | 3.00 | 3.20 | 3.40 | 3.80 |
| 30% | 2.33 | 2.50 | 2.67 | 3.00 |
| 35% | 1.86 | 2.00 | 2.14 | 2.43 |
| 40% | 1.50 | 1.62 | 1.75 | 2.00 |
| 45% | 1.22 | 1.33 | 1.44 | 1.67 |
| 50% | 1.00 | 1.10 | 1.20 | 1.40 |
| 55% | 0.82 | 0.91 | 1.00 | 1.18 |
| 60% | 0.67 | 0.75 | 0.83 | 1.00 |
| 65% | 0.54 | 0.62 | 0.69 | 0.85 |
| 70% | 0.43 | 0.50 | 0.57 | 0.71 |
Example (illustrative). A 2R setup at a 40% win rate looks like +0.20R per trade on paper: (0.4 × 2) − (0.6 × 1). With a 0.5% stop and 0.05% per side, c is 0.20R, and the same setup is (0.4 × 1.8) − (0.6 × 1.2) = 0.00R. The table agrees: at 40% and c = 0.20R, the floor is exactly 2.00.
Slippage belongs in c too, and it tends to land on stop exits — see
slippage explained. For the fee side alone, fee
drag over a year shows how the same cost
compounds.
Minimum R vs the R you can actually get
The confusion worth avoiding: this table tells you what you need, not what you can choose. You cannot read “40% → 1.5R” and then move your targets to 2R expecting to stay at 40%. A target further away is hit less often, so moving it changes the win rate the table was looked up from.
The table is for checking a strategy you already run, with a win rate and an average R that came from the same set of trades. It is not a recipe for designing one.
Where the boundary should sit
Use a win rate from enough trades to mean something. A 40% win rate from 100 trades is compatible, at roughly two standard errors, with a true rate anywhere from about 30% to 50%. Over that range the floor runs from about 2.31R down to about 1.01R. From 30 trades the range is wider still. See how many trades before you can judge a strategy.
Check the cost-adjusted column, not the first one. The c = 0 column is the figure people quote and nobody trades at.
Leave room above the floor. Sitting exactly on the break-even line means the strategy is not making money; sitting just above it means a small change in fees, slippage or win rate can put it underneath. How far above is your decision, and it depends on how confident you are in the inputs.
FAQ
What risk/reward ratio do I need with a 40% win rate?
At least 1.5 to 1 before costs, meaning your average winner must be 1.5 times your average loser just to break even. Fees and slippage raise that: if the round trip costs 0.1R per trade, the floor becomes 1.75, and at 0.2R it becomes 2.0.
How do you calculate the break-even risk/reward ratio?
Divide the loss rate by the win rate: R = (1 − p) ÷ p. At a 30% win rate that is 0.7 ÷ 0.3, or 2.33. To include costs expressed as a fraction c of 1R, use (1 − p + c) ÷ p instead.
What win rate do I need for a 2:1 risk/reward?
About 33% before costs, from the formula 1 ÷ (1 + R). If fees and slippage cost 0.1R per trade, the requirement rises to (1 + 0.1) ÷ (1 + 2), about 37%. These assume every win is a full 2R and every loss a full 1R.
Why do fees matter more at low win rates?
Because costs are paid on every trade but can only be recovered by the winners. In the break-even formula costs add c divided by the win rate to the required ratio, so the same 0.1R cost adds 0.5R to the requirement at a 20% win rate and only about 0.14R at 70%.