Capstone: a measured 50-trade sim block
Run, log and review a 50-trade practice block across two written plans, then compute expectancy, intervals, cost drag and plan adherence. Two learners with the same total show why the total is the least informative number.
Start in plain English
This capstone closes the Foundations course with one task: run 50 practice scalps across two written plans, log every one, and review the block with numbers. It is the practice block the earlier lessons pointed to. It does not show whether you are ready to trade live, and it does not prove a plan works. It shows whether you can produce and read the evidence that would answer those questions.
The core idea: the total P&L of a block is the least informative number in it. Two learners can finish with the same total and very different evidence: one with the plan followed on nearly every trade and an honest interval, the other with a result built on deviations that happened to pay. The worksheet below separates the two.
This page is a practice protocol for learners in the course and is not intended for search results.
Two paths from the same start
All three learners below are fictional, and every count is Illustrative. Each ran the same protocol: two written plans, 25 trades each, $50 planned risk per trade (1R), the same fee rate and the same slippage penalty. Results are in R after costs.
Path ALearner 1: plan followed, honest interval
50 trades: 18 targets (average +1.90R), 22 stops (average −1.25R), 10 time stops (average −0.27R). Total +4.0R (+$200). Plan followed on 48 of 50 trades. Cost drag 0.12R per trade.
Path BLearner 2: same total, built on deviations
50 trades: 38 with the plan followed (12 targets averaging +1.90R, 20 stops averaging −1.25R, 6 time stops averaging −0.30R) totalling −4.0R; 12 deviations totalling +8.0R (three cancelled stops that recovered, four doubled sizes that won, five early exits). Total +4.0R (+$200).
Path CLearner 3: nothing much happened
50 trades: 15 targets (average +1.95R), 20 stops (average −1.19R), 15 time stops (average −0.40R). Total −0.55R (−$27.50). Plan followed on 47 of 50. Cost drag 0.18R per trade, with many entries in wide-spread stocks.
Review note: Learners 1 and 2 have the same total and the same block expectancy. Only Learner 1 has evidence about a plan. Learner 2 has evidence about deviations that happened to pay, which a later block can just as easily make cost. Learner 3's flat result is also evidence: a plan near break-even whose cost drag is worth attacking first. None of the three has shown a positive plan; 50 trades rarely can. The rest of this page sets out the protocol, the log, the worksheet and how to decide what to test next.
The practice protocol
- Two plans, written in full before the first trade, with every part of the template in A trading plan as a hypothesis: conditions, trigger, invalidation, target, time stop, expected base rate with its source, size rule, Path B response and costs. The two plans can be the course's examples (VWAP reclaims, bull flags) or your own.
- 25 trades per plan, in a simulator or on replayed charts. Do not edit either plan during the block.
- Fixed dollar risk per trade. One 1R in dollars for the whole block, with the liquidity cap from Position sizing.
- A slippage penalty, written first and applied to every simulated fill, as in Paper trading: for example 1 cent on entries, 2 cents extra on stops, and a share of passive touches counted as non-fills.
- Real fee rates from your own broker's plan; ECN fees shows the worksheet.
- Every qualifying setup logged, including the ones you skipped (
mode=skipped).
The log
Use the FennEdge practice log for every entry: download the practice log (CSV), with a column guide. The columns that the worksheet needs most:
| Column | Used for |
|---|---|
setup_tag, definition_version |
Splitting the block by plan |
conditions, knowable_at_decision |
Grouping later; keeping hindsight out of notes |
planned_risk_usd, gross_r, net_r |
Expectancy in R after costs |
fees_usd, slippage_penalty_usd |
Cost drag |
path |
Path A, B and C shares |
plan_followed, deviation_note |
Adherence and the cost of deviations |
review_note |
Decision-quality note, written before looking at P&L |
The log stays on your device. It is separate from the FennEdge Trading Journal, which holds only real broker-synced trades.
The review worksheet
Compute each line for the whole block and for each plan separately, with the count beside every figure.
| Line | Formula | Learner 1 (Illustrative) |
|---|---|---|
| Trades taken | count of non-skipped rows | 50 |
| Path shares | count of A, B, C ÷ trades | 36% / 44% / 20% |
| Expectancy | average net_r |
+0.08R |
| Rough 95% interval for expectancy | average ± 1.96 × standard deviation ÷ √n | −0.32R to +0.48R |
| Break-even Path A share | average non-A loss ÷ (average A win + average non-A loss) | about 33% |
| Wilson interval for the Path A share | see How many trades before your numbers mean anything | about 24% to 50% |
| Cost drag | average (fees + slippage penalty) ÷ planned risk (1R), in R per trade; say whether the spread is included | 0.12R |
| Plan adherence | plan_followed = yes ÷ trades |
96% |
| Followed vs. deviated | average net_r in each group |
48 followed / 2 deviated (too few to average) |
| 2 × 2 view | followed/deviated × won/lost | see Reviewing scalps |
How many trades before your numbers mean anything explains both intervals; Expectancy and Risk/reward and breakeven cover the formulas; Reviewing scalps covers the 2 × 2 view.
Observe vs. infer
From Learner 1's worksheet (fictional; Illustrative):
| What the worksheet shows (observed) | What a learner might infer | Why it is not established |
|---|---|---|
| Expectancy +0.08R over 50 trades | "My plan has an edge" | The interval runs from −0.32R to +0.48R |
| Path A share 36% vs. break-even 33% | "I am above break-even" | The share's interval, 24% to 50%, covers break-even |
| Adherence 96% | "The block tested my plan" | Yes, for these 50 trades and this fill model |
| Plan Q did better than Plan P over 25 trades each | "Plan Q is the better plan" | 25 trades per plan leave intervals that overlap widely |
Odds box
Under these assumptions the interval would exclude zero only after about 1,200 trades. That is not a reason to stop practising; it is the reason the course asks for definitions, costs and adherence first, which are visible far sooner.
Deciding what to test next
The worksheet points to one of a few next steps. None is a prediction; each is the next test.
- The interval covers break-even, adherence is high: run another block of the same plans unchanged. This is the usual case after 50 trades.
- Cost drag is large against gross expectancy: test a change to costs first (fewer passive entries in thin books, a tighter spread condition, a better fee plan) as v2.
- Adherence is low: the plan was not tested. Repeat the block and work on the Path B response before changing any condition.
- A recorded condition differs between Path A and Path B trades: write it into v2 as a condition and test it in a new block, without merging the counts.
- Moving to small live size is a separate decision with its own risks; Paper trading covers what changes. Real trades then belong in the Trading Journal.
Cost of being wrong
| Reading error | What it can cost (Illustrative) |
|---|---|
| Treating Learner 2's +4.0R as a plan result | Scaling up a plan whose followed trades averaged −0.11R |
| Dropping a plan after 25 trades | Discarding a plan whose interval still includes positive values |
| Ignoring cost drag | A 0.12R drag erases most of a +0.15R gross edge |
| Counting only taken trades | Skipped setups that would have lost or won disappear from the base rate |
How many trades before this means anything
Fifty trades are enough to check definitions, costs and adherence. They are rarely enough to show a positive edge: the odds box shows how slowly the interval narrows. Keep each block's counts separate by plan version, and combine blocks only when the plan did not change between them.
Ready for the Advanced course
The Advanced course, Advanced Small-Cap Scalping, assumes that, on your own log, you can:
- compute expectancy and the break-even win rate after costs;
- size a trade from dollar risk with a liquidity cap;
- explain why 50 trades give a wide interval;
- separate tape observations from inferences (Tape reading);
- and have completed this 50-trade sim block with tags.
What this lesson does not claim
- Completing the block does not show that a plan is profitable or that a learner is ready to trade live.
- The three learners and their numbers are fictional and Illustrative; intervals are computed from those counts.
- The penalty-adjusted sim results remain estimates of live results.
Go deeper
- FennEdge first.
- In-Play Days shows 1-minute charts of past active days for replay practice. Without Max, including as a guest, you can open each ticker's most recent active day in full; earlier days and the two-year history need Max (as of 2026-10-05). Replaying many past days needs Max.
- Level Up (Plus and above) is a private challenge scored on your Journal net P&L once you trade live, with an optional daily max loss per level. It does not track tags or entry timing, so keep process goals such as a block with every trade tagged in your own log.
- The Trading Journal syncs real broker trades only; on Pro and Max, its Review page groups real trades by Setup tag.
- Related lessons: Thinking in probabilities, A trading plan as a hypothesis, Reviewing scalps.
Exercises
Eight exercises follow this page: three concept checks, four calculations on an Illustrative block summary laid out like your worksheet (repeat each on your own log), and the structured 50-trade practice task described above. Exercises, answers and progress are available after signing in.
Primary sources
- Wilson, E. B. (1927). Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 22(158).
- Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T. and Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review 100(3).
- Baron, J. and Hershey, J. C. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(4).
Sources checked 2026-10-05. The learners, plans, counts and costs on this page are fictional and Illustrative. This page is education, not a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Past patterns do not indicate future results.