Prop Firm Passing ProbabilityMonte Carlo Simulator

An evaluation is a path problem, not an average problem

Pass a profit target before hitting a maximum drawdown, often inside a time window. That's every futures evaluation in one sentence — and it's why expectancy alone can't tell you your odds. Two traders with the identical 0.375R edge can have wildly different pass rates depending on one decision: how much they risk per trade relative to the drawdown limit.

Take a typical $50,000 evaluation: $3,000 profit target, $2,000 maximum drawdown. Risk $500 per trade and the target is 6R away — maybe 16 expected trades for our 0.375R trader — but four consecutive losses end the attempt, and at a 45% loss rate a four-loss streak appears in any given four-trade window about 4% of the time. Across 16+ trades, that risk compounds into a substantial failure probability for a genuinely profitable trader. Risk $250 instead and the fatal streak doubles to eight — dramatically rarer — but the target is now 12R away, twice as many trades, and time limits or consistency rules start to bite. That tension is the whole game, and it's what the Monte Carlo simulation above measures: thousands of simulated evaluations with your numbers, counting how many pass.

Size from the drawdown, not the account

The headline account size is marketing. Your real capital in an evaluation is the distance to the drawdown limit — $2,000 in the example above, 4% of the notional account. The practical sizing frame:

risk per trade = max drawdown ÷ losing streak you must survive

A disciplined intraday strategy should expect — not fear, expect — losing streaks of five to seven somewhere in a 50-trade sample. Dividing the $2,000 drawdown by a survivable streak of 6–8 puts risk per trade at $250–$330, which is 0.5–0.65% of the notional account. If that produces position sizes too small to reach the target in time, the honest conclusion is that the evaluation's rules are tight for your strategy's trade frequency — better to know before paying the fee.

Trailing drawdown changes the math more than any other rule

Drawdown type is not fine print — it can move your pass probability by double digits at the same risk size. A trailing intraday limit ratchets up with your equity peak including open profits: let a 2R winner retrace to 0.5R before exiting and the limit has permanently moved against you by the difference. An end-of-day limit only looks at your closed balance at the session close, leaving room for trades to breathe. A static floor never moves at all.

The strategic consequence of a trailing limit: realized profits early in the attempt are disproportionately valuable, because they bank distance against the ratchet. Many experienced evaluation traders deliberately take partial profits faster during evaluations than they would on a personal account — slightly worse expectancy, meaningfully better path survival. (For the recovery math behind drawdowns generally, see our drawdown calculator.)

Daily loss limits and consistency rules

Two more rules shape the path. A daily loss limit (commonly 1.5–2.5% of the account) caps how much of your drawdown budget one bad session can burn — survivable if you stop at two or three losses per day, fatal if you average down through a trend day. A consistency rule caps how much of the profit target one day may contribute (often 30–50%), which quietly outlaws the one-big-day pass and forces the steady profile the simulation assumes. Read both before choosing risk size: they effectively shrink the streak budget and stretch the required trade count.

Think in expected attempts, not single tries

If the simulator says 40%, the expected number of attempts is 1 ÷ 0.40 = 2.5 — so the realistic cost of getting funded is roughly two and a half fees, not one. That reframing has teeth: a sizing tweak that moves the pass rate from 30% to 45% cuts the expected cost by a third, while "risking big to pass this attempt" usually moves the number the other way. Treat the fee as a position, the pass rate as your win rate, and make the expected-value play.

Frequently asked questions

What are realistic odds of passing an evaluation?

Reported industry pass rates run 25–45% per attempt — and most failures are sizing failures. A trader with real expectancy who sizes from the drawdown can do considerably better.

How much should I risk per trade?

A common frame is 10–25% of the max drawdown per trade — $200–$500 on a $2,000-drawdown evaluation. Divide the drawdown by the losing streak you must survive (six to eight is realistic).

Why do profitable traders fail?

Variance. Losing streaks of four to six are routine for any real win rate; if your size makes that streak breach the limit, you fail with a winning strategy.

How does trailing drawdown change my odds?

It lowers them at any given size, because retracing open profits ratchets the limit against you. Banking realized profits early matters more under trailing rules.

Should I run multiple evaluations at once?

Treat it as expected value: at a 40% pass rate, expect ~2.5 attempts' worth of fees either way. Parallel attempts smooth variance but front-load cost — and check the firm's rules on copied trades.