Partial Exits at Liquidity: Calculating Blended R

A trader takes half off at one unit of risk and closes the rest at three. The journal says three R. The chart did reach that final target, but only half the original position was still there. The trade earned two R before costs.

Partial exits can make sense when an ICT plan has a nearby internal objective and a more distant external pool. The accounting must follow the position still open at each price. Otherwise a management habit can look profitable for purely arithmetic reasons.

Definition and chart context: partial exit at a liquidity objective

Start a paper long at 1.08647 with stop 1.08567. The original risk is 8.0 pips. Take half at 1.08727, or 8.0 pips above entry, and plan to take the rest at 1.08847, or 20.0 pips above entry. The full-position alternatives are 1:1 and 1:2.5. The blended gross risk:reward if both fill is 1:(0.5 × 1 + 0.5 × 2.5), or 1:1.75.

For the ICT background, see Liquidity Runs. The worksheets below use stated study rules for measurement, confirmation and simulated fills. Those choices let you reproduce the examples; they are not claims that a public candle identifies the owner, size or intent of an institutional order.

Why this distinction matters

An internal liquidity objective can interrupt a move before price reaches the external target. Scaling out trades some upside for an earlier realised result. Its value depends on the entire distribution of paths: target then reversal, both targets, immediate loss, and a runner stopped after the first exit. A screenshot ending at the distant high reveals only one of those paths.

How to identify it before the next candle

Record original size, execution entry, protective stop, first target, second target, fractions to close and the runner’s stop rule. Check whether each intended portion is valid under the broker’s minimum lot increment. A third of 0.02 lots cannot be executed exactly with a 0.01-lot step. Round the actual portions and recompute their fractions.

Moving the runner’s stop to entry after the first fill changes the distribution. A return to entry now leaves +0.5R gross, whereas a return to the original stop leaves 0R gross. Neither calculation includes fees. Fractions must be measured against the original position. Selling half of what remains on a second partial is not the same as selling another half of the initial size.

Keep the original risk denominator when scaling out

A long at 1.09234 with stop 1.09154 risks 8.0 pips. First target 1.09314 offers 8.0 pips or 1R; second target 1.09474 offers 24.0 pips or 3R. With half closed at each, full success gives 0.5 × 1 + 0.5 × 3 = 2R, equivalent to gross risk:reward of 1:2. If the second half returns to entry, the result is 0.5R. If that half reaches the original stop, the result is zero gross R. If the stop is reached before either target the full position loses 1R. All four paths belong to the same plan.

Check whether the proposed split is executable at the instrument’s volume increment. A position of 0.03 lots cannot be divided into two equal 0.015-lot exits if the broker accepts only hundredths. Use actual volumes and recompute the weights. Extra minimum ticket charges can also make two exits costlier than one.

How to trade the idea in a paper replay

Decide before entry whether the runner stays at the original stop, moves to entry or follows a structural pivot. Those choices can produce materially different outcomes after the same first target. The phrase risk-free is inaccurate once costs and slippage are considered. Report a gross break-even runner and its net money result separately.

The two replays use constructed five-minute candles and a controlled order model shared across this workbook series. Keeping the execution pattern comparable lets you isolate what the featured concept changes: the reference, the eligibility decision, or the management rule. These selected paths illustrate mechanics. They are not historical signals or a sample from which to estimate a winning percentage.

What an order ticket contributes to an ICT chart

Draw a vertical divider on paper. On the left, record the ICT interpretation: the location, displacement and proposed draw. On the right, record the instructions a dealing platform could accept: instrument, direction, size, order type, price, protective exit and expiry. Nothing on the right can be left as “when it looks right” if the goal is a reproducible replay. If your actual trading is discretionary, label the discretionary decision rather than inventing a mechanical rule afterwards.

An active order is different from an intended order. A moving quote could reach a level during a connection delay, between decision and submission, or after an expiry. Saving only the entry candle loses those distinctions. Keep the platform acknowledgement and fill record when reviewing real execution. For synthetic data, state whether the model assumes immediate activation, permits price improvement and verifies the correct side of the spread. A simplified assumption is useful when it is visible.

Trade size belongs to the contract, not the picture. For the USD-quoted instruments in the replays, a pip is 0.00010 and a fifth decimal is one tenth of a pip. Verify the contract size, minimum lot, volume step, commission schedule and margin rules on the actual instrument before reusing any money calculation. A broker symbol with a suffix can have different contract terms from the symbol in a textbook.

After a simulated exit, reconcile three quantities: planned risk at the assumed fill, risk at the actual or modelled fill, and realised money after costs. The first answers what was intended; the second answers how much exposure actually opened; the third answers what happened. A loss can exceed its planned amount, while a smaller loss is not evidence that the original stop was correctly placed. This reconciliation gives a structural idea an execution record that another person can audit.

For the platform terminology behind this distinction, see the MetaTrader description of orders, deals and positions. Use the actual broker’s instrument specifications when the platform supports more than one execution mode.

Weighted R when the lot step will not split evenly

Suppose a study wants a fifty-fifty exit but the actual position is three hundredths of a lot and volume increments are hundredths. Closing one hundredth first leaves two hundredths running. The weights are one third and two thirds. Closing two hundredths first reverses the weights. Neither is a faithful implementation of half and half, and the difference becomes larger when the runner target is far away.

Write the weights next to the original total volume, not next to the current balance after each exit. If one third closes at one risk unit and two thirds close at two risk units, the gross weighted result is one third plus four thirds, or five thirds of initial risk. Reversing the fractions yields four thirds. This is portfolio arithmetic applied to one position, not additional evidence for the ICT target used to place either exit.

Costs should follow their actual charging basis. A commission proportional to volume can often be allocated by fraction. A minimum charge for each ticket may apply twice when there are two exits. A runner held past a financing cutoff might incur a charge the first portion avoided. Summing net cash from the execution records is more reliable than multiplying one idealised per-ticket figure by the number of exits.

Review path dependence by retaining three subsets: stop before the partial, partial followed by reversal, and both objectives achieved. An average that contains only the second subset will flatter the insurance value of scaling out. One containing only full winners will make partials look unnecessarily expensive. Both subsets matter alongside outright losses.

Worked replay A: A fixed bracket is the control for a two-exit policy

Keep the same entry at 1.08779 and initial stop at 1.08658. The partial policy sells or buys back one half at 1.08900, exactly 12.10 pips favourable, then leaves the other half for 1.09086. On both halves keep the original stop unless the experiment explicitly changes it. The chart labels the first exit as well as the full-position objective.

If both objectives fill, gross risk:reward for the split is 1:(0.5 × 1 + 0.5 × 2.54), approximately 1:1.77. This is lower than 1:2.54 on a full winner. If only the first exit fills and the rest returns to the original stop, the weighted result is 0.5 × 1 + 0.5 × (-1), or zero before costs.

Reconstruct the decision before reading the outcome

Cover the candles to the right of 12:15. On this EUR/USD bid chart the test candle opens at 1.08752, trades down to 1.08681 and ends at 1.08716. The close tells you that bids recovered part of the excursion. It does not yet tell you that anyone bought a particular number of lots, or that the prior short-term high will give way. Mark the low as an observation and leave the order field blank.

Now reveal the candle beginning 12:25. Its close at 1.08855 is above the earlier pivot at 1.08823. This is the completed break used by the exercise. Look two candles apart: the high of the bar beginning 12:20 is 1.08766 and the low of the bar beginning 12:30 is 1.08792. Their separation forms the bullish fair value gap in this model. One strong green candle alone would not establish those two outside prices.

A resting buy at their midpoint, 1.08779, can first be submitted at 12:35 under a next-bar convention. The 12:30 candle is named for its opening time, so its low cannot supply a fill for an order that depends on its close. This matters whenever the same screenshot appears to show both confirmation and a cheap entry. Write the order time before revealing the next low, not after finding a favourable one.

Assume a constant 0.9-pip spread throughout this small slice. On the return, bid reaches 1.08746 and the corresponding ask reaches 1.08755. The latter is at or below the requested buy price. We book 1.08779 as the fill, with no price improvement, no delay after activation and enough available size. Those are transparent simulation assumptions. A real candle, even from the correct side of the spread, is not a broker’s confirmation.

What the order would risk in cash

Give the practice account a USD balance of 1920. Its hypothetical cap of one half of one percent is $9.60 for this decision. For a USD-quoted pair with a 100,000-unit standard contract, one pip at one standard lot is $10. Adding 0.7 pip for assumed round-trip commission and other execution friction gives $128.00 of modelled downside at one lot. The spread is already present in the entry and exit quote rules and is not charged a second time.

Divide $9.60 by $128.00 and round down to the next permitted hundredth of a lot. That leaves 0.07 lots, risking about $8.96 under these assumptions. A gap or worse stop fill can exceed that number. Position sizing changes the money exposed; it cannot turn a missing confirmation into a valid entry. When the minimum tradable size exceeds the cap, the worksheet records a pass.

Change just one fact

On the illustrated path the stop trades before the one-risk objective, so both halves lose and the blended gross result is -1R. Use the initial total cash at risk as denominator in either case. Changing the denominator after removing half the position makes the results incomparable.

Worked replay B: A fixed bracket is the control for a two-exit policy

Keep the same entry at 1.26283 and initial stop at 1.26372. The partial policy sells or buys back one half at 1.26194, exactly 8.90 pips favourable, then leaves the other half for 1.26101. On both halves keep the original stop unless the experiment explicitly changes it. The chart labels the first exit as well as the full-position objective.

If both objectives fill, gross risk:reward for the split is 1:(0.5 × 1 + 0.5 × 2.04), approximately 1:1.52. This is lower than 1:2.04 on a full winner. If only the first exit fills and the rest returns to the original stop, the weighted result is 0.5 × 1 + 0.5 × (-1), or zero before costs.

Audit the short from the exit side of the quote

Read the second tape independently. The 12:20 bid high is 1.26359. By the end of the bar starting 12:30, bid has closed at 1.26227, below the pre-existing pivot at 1.26249. The workbook calls that downward displacement. It does not require a guess about which institution initiated the move. The mark is useful because a different reviewer can identify the same closing price on the same feed.

The low of the 12:25 candle is 1.26295 and the high of the 12:35 candle is 1.26271. The later high remains below the earlier low, leaving a bearish execution gap between them. Halving this interval gives 1.26283. A sell limit resting there becomes eligible only after 12:35 has finished. When bid subsequently reaches 1.26307 the paper order can fill at its stated price. No favourable slippage is credited.

It is tempting to score this short from the lowest red wick, because that is what the bid chart displays. The position actually has to buy back. With an assumed spread of 1.0 pip, an ask target at 1.26101 requires a bid at or below 1.26091. An ask stop at 1.26372 needs only a bid at or above 1.26362. Marking these two conversions before scoring prevents a one-spread error on both exits.

Keep the original order record even when the outcome is obvious from the last candle. A reviewer needs the decision price, the reference quote and the activation time, not just a screenshot captioned “short”. If the platform would have rejected a resting order this close to market, or the feed lacks quotes in the return interval, the correct response is to change the fill status. It is not to claim a market execution at the old limit price.

Score the path, then challenge the assumption

The deciding candle opens at 13:00. Its bid range is 1.26074 to 1.26191. With the assumed spread, the ask range is 1.26084 to 1.26201. The lower target is reached before the other exit without requiring a guess about two exits inside this bar. A later movement cannot reverse a booked exit. In particular, a later visit to the original target would not repair a prior stop.

Increase the estimated round-trip friction by another half pip as a sensitivity check, while leaving entry, stop and target fills fixed. Planned risk:reward becomes 1:1.74, obtained by dividing 17.2 pips of possible net reward by 9.9 pips of downside. This answers a cost question only. If widening the actual bid/ask spread changes whether an order is triggered, reconstruct the path instead of merely reducing the result by a fee.

Change just one fact

On the illustrated path the executable quote clears both objectives on separate bars, so the blended gross result is +1.52R. Use the initial total cash at risk as denominator in either case. Changing the denominator after removing half the position makes the results incomparable.

What can go wrong in the review?

Closing half can incur a minimum ticket fee or a different slippage cost from a single larger exit. Apply actual fees to each fill when available. Do not add a whole-position round-trip cost again to each half as if two full positions were traded.

Reader exercise: Did the partial approximate the planned half?

Try the following classification without using profit or loss as a clue. Measure the absolute difference between the first exit’s actual weight and fifty percent. For this worksheet, the value must be at most 5 percentage points. Also require this separate fact: the recorded weights use original volume as denominator. These are conditions for admitting a row to a study. They do not replace the order trigger, size calculation or exit plan. The six records are constructed cases, not a report of observed market frequencies.

Cover the answer column and decide which facts you would request before admitting each record. A passes the numerical test at 0 percentage points and has the other required evidence. B has the other evidence but measures 16.7 percentage points. Under the stated rule that is enough to exclude B. A clean-looking reaction after B cannot change the comparison absolute difference between the first exit’s actual weight and fifty percent ≤ 5. If you want to study a wider definition, write it as a new version and rerun every observation.

C is the deliberate boundary case. Its value of 5 percentage points equals the threshold. This worksheet uses an inclusive comparison, so C passes. A version that demands strictly less would exclude it. Keep exact prices or timestamps in the original record before rounding for display; values that look equal on a chart may still differ at the feed’s actual precision. The most efficient place to look for a disagreement between two reviewers is often an equality case like this.

D has a larger value than allowed, so it fails even though the separate prerequisite is unknown. E demonstrates the opposite error: the measured 2.5 percentage points is acceptable, but the prerequisite is known to be false. F lacks the numerical evidence and its remaining condition is satisfied. There is no basis to call it either a clean pass or a measured failure. Keeping “unresolved” distinct from “no” preserves what data collection could still settle.

Closing half the remaining balance on a later ticket cannot be treated as closing half the original position. A compliant weight does not establish a profitable exit.

Reconcile the worksheet with an execution record

A disputed observation needs evidence from the moment the order or decision was active. Match the symbol, account clock, order identifier where available and quote side before comparing prices. A platform may show an order, several deals and a final position summary as separate objects. The summary alone can lose the timing or weights that explain a difference. In replay, record your simulated equivalents rather than implying that an actual broker supplied a fill.

For this lesson the minimum useful packet is the initial position size and each ticket’s volume and execution price. Preserve the original precision and include the clock used. If another reader can reproduce the number but not the label, examine the equality rule and prerequisite. If they cannot reproduce the number, settle the input discrepancy first. These are different faults, and only the second can be repaired by retrieving better data.

Among these six illustrative records, two meet both conditions, three fail a known test, and one remains unresolved. Reporting just two passes out of five known cases hides the effect of F; declaring F a failure invents a measurement. A practical report can state the lower and upper eligible counts, two and three out of six, while requesting the missing record. This is an eligibility audit, not evidence that an executable order would earn a return.

A test you can run on unseen sessions

Replay a full-exit and partial-exit policy on identical entries with the same initial money risk. Compare net expectancy, return variability, losing sequences and the number of fills required.

Make one dated record for each session you inspect, including those in which the required condition never appears. Keep a count of eligible signals, orders placed, orders filled and positions closed. A result per fill answers a different question from a result per session. Separate them before comparing this rule with another way of reading partial exit at a liquidity objective.

Frequently asked questions

To put this worksheet beside a live chart, use the guides to London Kill Zone timing and the Judas Swing to define the session question. Then compare market structure shifts for confirmation, fair value gaps for the return price, and order blocks for the larger area behind the move.