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.
