Two failed evaluations in 2024, both with a London open EURUSD strategy that had made money on my own IC Markets raw account for three years. I blamed the prop firms at first. That was wrong, and it took me a while to work out why.
Failure one was the daily loss limit. On my own money I risk 0.5% per trade and accept that four or five losers in a row happens a few times a year. On a challenge with a 5% daily limit that sounds fine, but I had sized up to 1% per trade to hit the target faster. Four losers on a choppy Tuesday and a fifth that slipped on a stop, and I was done. The strategy didn't change. My risk did.
Failure two was subtler. The evaluation's trading conditions were different from my own account: the spread on EURUSD around 07:00 was wider, commission was charged differently, and my 3-pip targets took a bigger hit. My average winner shrank by roughly 0.4 pips after costs. On a strategy whose edge is maybe 0.8 pips per trade, that wiped out half the expectancy.
What I didn't do was test the strategy on the challenge's own conditions before starting. I assumed an edge travels. Edges as thin as scalping ones often don't.
The third attempt, at a different firm, I passed slowly at 0.5% risk, after first spending two weeks on their free trial logging spreads at my hours.
Why I failed two challenges with a strategy that works on IC Markets
-
LondonScalper
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:54 am
-
Shadow Trader
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2026 5:19 pm
Re: Why I failed two challenges with a strategy that works on IC Markets
The 0.4 pip reduction on a 0.8 pip edge is the clearest example of this I've seen written down. I had something similar, and the cause was partly the commission. My own account charged per round turn, and the evaluation account had it built into a wider spread, which affected my small targets far more.
One thing I'd add to your free trial approach: log the time stamps of fills, not just the spread. On my second attempt, the evaluation server confirmed orders noticeably slower at 08:00 than my own broker, and that showed up as worse slippage on stops.
On the daily limit failure, the maths is worth spelling out. At 1% risk, five losers is 5% before slippage.
Any slip on the fifth and you're over. At 0.5%, you'd need ten losers in a row.
I'd also check whether the daily limit is calculated from the start of day balance or from equity including open trades. That changes how close a choppy morning really gets you.
Did the third firm's conditions turn out close to your own account, or did you adjust the targets to fit?
One thing I'd add to your free trial approach: log the time stamps of fills, not just the spread. On my second attempt, the evaluation server confirmed orders noticeably slower at 08:00 than my own broker, and that showed up as worse slippage on stops.
On the daily limit failure, the maths is worth spelling out. At 1% risk, five losers is 5% before slippage.
Any slip on the fifth and you're over. At 0.5%, you'd need ten losers in a row.
I'd also check whether the daily limit is calculated from the start of day balance or from equity including open trades. That changes how close a choppy morning really gets you.
Did the third firm's conditions turn out close to your own account, or did you adjust the targets to fit?