Partial FVG fill vs full fill: which I treat as scalp edge on EURUSD

[LondonScalper]

Not all FVG fills are equal on EURUSD.

Full fills into the opposite side of an imbalance often arrive late for a scalp — you have already paid the journey and the leftover edge is thin. Partial fills (roughly into the imbalance, with rejection) have been more useful for me as continuation or reclaim entries, especially in the London first hour when location matters more than completing the cartoon rectangle.

Rule: I do not hold for "the rest of the gap" as a thesis. If the partial fill gives me a structured reaction, I manage it as a normal scalp with normal invalidation. If price slices through to a full fill with acceptance, the idea is wrong — I exit without debating whether the gap "owes" me a bounce later.

This is the depth question sitting beside broader FVG fill discussions.

• Partial or full fill — what does your EURUSD sample say?
• Do you measure fill depth, or is it visual?

Complement to fill-the-gap folklore — specifically how deep is enough.

[PropScalpDesk]

I measure depth, because visually I always talked myself into "close enough". I tag each fill at 25, 50, 75 or 100% of the gap, taken from wick to wick on the three-candle pattern, and note whether the reaction bar closed back outside.

Two filters that removed most of the rubbish for me. First, a minimum gap size relative to spread. On EURUSD M1 plenty of "imbalances" measure somewhere between 0.3 and 0.5 pips, which is barely more than the raw spread plus commission, so there's nothing to trade inside them; I ignore anything under roughly three times my all-in cost. Second, the gap has to come from displacement away from a level I had marked before the session, not just any fast candle.

Is your partial-fill sample mostly from the London first hour, or spread through the morning?