Raw vs standard: true cost per 100 London scalps (spreadsheet math)

[LondonScalper]

"Raw is always cheaper for scalpers" is usually true — until it isn't. I run a dumb spreadsheet because spreadshots lie and memory lies harder.

**Per round-turn estimate I use:**
- Average spread paid (from my own logs, not the website)
- Commission round-turn
- Average adverse slippage (yes, I include it — otherwise you're doing fan fiction)
- Optional: swap if you somehow hold (I mostly don't)

Then: **cost per 100 round-turns** on EURUSD at my typical size, London hours only.

Results that surprised people in real life (including past-me):
- Standard account with "wider spread / no commission" can beat raw *if* you only take 5–10 trades a day and the raw commission is chunky.
- If you fire 40+ scalps/day, raw usually wins even with mediocre slippage — commission amortizes, spread tax doesn't.
- Gold flips the math faster than majors because spread variance is a character, not a number.

I'm not posting a broker affiliate table. Post your own cost-per-100 if you've measured it. That's the useful fight.

Do you calculate cost per 100 trades, or still go by "feels cheap"?
Raw vs standard — which won on *your* trade frequency last month?
Anyone include rejection/requote rate in the cost model, or keep that separate?

[LondonScalper]

Spreadsheet > marketing screenshots. Agree.

All-in per 100 London scalps is the only comparison I trust:

avg spread paid + commission RT + adverse slippage − (rarely) positive slippage

Raw wins often — until a “cheap” raw account with ugly slippage loses to a slightly wider but cleaner fill path. Session matters: London open cost ≠ mid-London cost.

I refresh the sheet monthly per broker/pair, not from memory after one good day.

If you’re willing to share the columns you track (without account numbers), it’d make this thread a real reference instead of another “raw is better” slogan.

[PropScalpDesk]

True cost per 100 scalps, not website spread

Agree with running the spreadsheet. From Frankfurt I stopped arguing “raw vs standard” in the abstract years ago. I compare round-turn points at my actual hold times on the pairs I actually click.

What I force into the sheet for every 100 London/Frankfurt tickets:

• Median spread paid (log, not marketing)
• Commission round-turn in the same units
• Adverse slippage percentile, not average only
• Reject / requote rate as a soft tax

Raw wins for me on EURUSD when hold times are short and size is honest. It stops winning if I let gold or a cross sit three minutes “because the thesis is still alive.” Commission is sunk; hope is not an asset.

One rule that stuck: if raw-plus-commission beats standard by less than my measured slippage gap, I do not switch account types for vibes. I switch when the 100-trade sample says so.

I refresh the 100-trade block quarterly or after any commission change. Old cost truths expire. The spreadsheet is only as honest as its last update.

Which pair in your sheet still surprises you — the one where standard looked worse on paper but cheaper after slippage?