Five Straight Wins, Two Losses Back, and +3.43R on the Week
Eight trades, five winners, +3.43R. The week opened with a loss, ran five in a row, then gave two back. NAS100 traded four times in both directions and finished
Before the trade, meet the system.
SkyAnalyst is not one AI trader. It is four specialist agents, each with its own data pipeline, each maintaining state between evaluations, and each required to agree before a position is sized. They don’t chat in prose. They write structured messages to a shared state object that each reads on every evaluation cycle.
Eight trades resolved this week and five of them won, for a net of +3.43R. The order they arrived in is the story. Monday opened with a NAS100 short that stopped out for -1R. Tuesday through Thursday morning produced five consecutive winners, three of them on Tuesday alone. Then Thursday afternoon and Friday gave two back, a USDCAD short and a NAS100 long, both for exactly -1R. A good week with a bad start and a bad finish still reads as a good week on the total, and we would rather show you the sequence than the average. Through Sep 7, 2026, the system has banked +28.75R since the Jan 12 inception. A $100,000 simulated account risking 2% per trade sits at $157,519 on static sizing. One position from this week is still open and is not in any figure above.
Act I: Monday's loss
The week opened badly. A NAS100 short on Monday afternoon stopped out for -1R, and it is the loss the desk graded highest for instructional value, which is a strange sentence until you read the teardown.
There was nothing structurally wrong with the entry. The bearish case that had carried the previous week was still on the board, and the setup was the same VWAP rejection pattern that had worked repeatedly. It stopped out anyway. That is what a -1R loss on a well-formed idea looks like, and a week that starts with one is a fair test of whether the sizing rule holds.
Act II: Five in a row
Tuesday was the week. Three shorts, all on the same post Jackson Hole macro read: yields at 4.77% printing new 5-day highs, breadth at -692, dollar firm, gold liquidating rather than bid. US30 for +0.89R, US500 for +2.14R, NAS100 for +1.50R on the TP1 baseline this recap uses.
Wednesday added a GBPUSD short for +1.02R, entered at the lowest confidence score of its own sequence after four refusals at higher ones. Thursday morning added a NAS100 long for +0.89R, taken over the objection of the desk's own Macro Agent because the live rate tape contradicted it.
Five trades, five winners, three different instruments and both directions. Each is published as its own case study.
Act III: Two back
Thursday afternoon a USDCAD short stopped out. Friday a NAS100 long stopped out. Both for exactly -1R, which is the only number a loss is allowed to be here.
The second of those is the one worth sitting with, because the NAS100 long that lost on Friday is the same book that won on Thursday morning. Nothing about the book changed in twenty-four hours. The tape did.
Every trade the system took.
| Date | Time | Instrument | Dir | Model | Setup | Grade | R | $ Sim | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31 | 14:05 UTC | NAS100 | Short | NAS100 SHORT, VWAP Rejection / Failed Rally Continuation | B | -1.0R(SL) | -$2,000(SL) | Stop hit | - | |
| Sep 1 | 15:13 UTC | US30 | Short | US30 SHORT | C+ | +0.89R(TP1) | +$1,783(TP1) | TP3 hit | Read case → | |
| Sep 1 | 15:46 UTC | US500 | Short | US500 SHORT, Sell Rally into VWAP / Prior Day Low Rejection | C+ | +2.14R(TP1) | +$4,282(TP1) | TP2 hit · ★ Trade of the week | Read case → | |
| Sep 1 | 16:04 UTC | NAS100 | Short | NAS100 SHORT, VWAP Rejection / Session High Resistance | C+ | +1.50R(TP1) | +$2,994(TP1) | TP3 hit | Read case → | |
| Sep 2 | 14:22 UTC | GBPUSD | Short | GBPUSD London mean-reversion failure short | C+ | +1.02R(TP1) | +$2,040(TP1) | TP1 hit | Read case → | |
| Sep 3 | 14:36 UTC | NAS100 | Long | Claude Opus 4.7 | NAS100 Fibonacci Pullback Continuation | C+ | +0.89R(TP1) | +$1,777(TP1) | TP3 hit | Read case → |
| Sep 3 | 14:41 UTC | USDCAD | Short | USDCAD Short Bearish Continuation Pullback | C+ | -1.0R(SL) | -$2,000(SL) | Stop hit | - | |
| Sep 4 | 14:17 UTC | NAS100 | Long | Claude Opus 4.7 | NAS100 LONG, Pullback to VWAP / Yesterday's High Support | C+ | -1.0R(SL) | -$2,000(SL) | Stop hit | - |
Dollar figures are simulated on a $100,000 account at 2% risk per trade. Actual subscriber P&L varies with account size. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
Pattern of the week
The pattern of the week is that direction stopped being the variable.
Last week the story was one-sided: the long books were bleeding and the short books were paying, which is what produced the direction split in the first place. This week NAS100 traded twice long and twice short and finished with one winner and one loser on each side, +0.39R across four trades. GBPUSD, US30 and US500 each took a single short and each won. USDCAD took a single short and lost.
That is a healthier and less quotable picture. When a book wins and loses in both directions across a week, the honest read is that neither side is currently mispriced and the outcomes are coming from ordinary variance rather than from a regime the desk is on the wrong side of. It is the difference between the GBPUSD long book in August, which lost 6.18R across ten trades in one direction and needed switching off, and the NAS100 book this week, which needs nothing done to it at all.
Decision highlights
We took three shorts on Tuesday from one macro read rather than concentrating the risk in the single best-looking instrument. Each was sized independently against its own stop, which is why the same thesis returned +0.89R, +1.50R and +2.14R on three different books. Concentrating into one of them would have been a bet on picking correctly among three, and there was no basis for that pick.
We took a NAS100 long on Thursday against our own Macro Agent's lean_bear at 71%. The framework does not resolve an agent disagreement by rank; it asks whether the market confirms the macro claim, and with yields down a third session and VIX and DXY both below their 5-day EMAs, it did not. The position was sized down to respect the disagreement and still went the full distance.
We left the losing books alone. Both NAS100 and USDCAD stopped out this week, and the instinct after a loss is to tighten a threshold or pull an allocation. Neither book has done anything that a single -1R justifies acting on, and reacting to one trade is how a system tunes itself into noise.
Six instruments, six stories.
EURUSD did not resolve a trade this week. A short was entered on Thursday at 1.1616 with a stop at 1.1629 and is still open at the time of writing, so it appears in no number in this recap.
All EURUSD this week →GBPUSD took one short and won it for +1.02R. The entry came after four consecutive refusals at higher confidence scores than the one it finally entered on, which is the whole subject of its case study.
All GBPUSD this week →US30 took one short on Tuesday for +0.89R on the TP1 baseline. It cleared on a single evaluation with every input agreeing at once, the only trade of the week that needed no waiting.
All US30 this week →NAS100 was the busiest book of the week and the closest to flat: four trades, two long and two short, one winner and one loser on each side, +0.39R net. Both of its losses are torn down in this week's losses report.
All NAS100 this week →USDJPY did not trade this week. No setup cleared the confluence threshold, and the book sat out rather than manufacture an entry.
All USDJPY this week →US500 took one short on Tuesday and produced the best result of the week at +2.14R, off a 7.8 point risk band that was the tightest stop the desk placed all week.
All US500 this week →USDCAD took one short on Thursday and lost it for -1R. One trade is not a sample and the book keeps its allocation.
All USDCAD this week →Win of the week: US500 Short · +2.14R
Loss worth learning from
Three losses this week, and all three cost exactly 1R.
That is not a coincidence, it is the entire risk design. Position size is calculated so that the distance from entry to stop equals a fixed 2% of the account, whatever the instrument and whatever the volatility. A NAS100 stop 78.9 points wide and a GBPUSD stop 15.5 pips wide are the same risk. The system does not try to make losses small. It makes them identical, so the only variable that determines profitability is what the winners do.
The most instructive of the three is Friday's NAS100 long, because Thursday's NAS100 long won. Same book, same instrument, same direction, opposite outcome, twenty-four hours apart. There is no adjustment to make in response to that pair, and the temptation to find one is the thing worth resisting.
Both NAS100 losses get a full teardown in this week's separate losses report, which also covers what a -3.61% drawdown looks like against a 56.82% win rate over 220 trades.
On a $100k account at 2.0% risk per trade.
Each trade risks +$2,000 (1R). The system's actual scale-out behavior may differ, see disclaimer.
| Scenario | R-multiple | Profit on $100k |
|---|---|---|
| Window netActual | +3.43R | +$6,860 |
All six agents combined.
From the desk
From the desk
The number that matters most this week is not +3.43R. It is that every one of the three losses cost exactly 1R, in a week where the desk was down on Monday, up five in a row by Thursday morning, and giving it back by Friday.
Through Sep 7, 2026, the system stands at +28.75R across 220 trades since the January 12 inception, 125 winners against 95 losers, a 56.82% win rate. On a $100,000 account at 2% risk, static sizing puts that at $157,519. Compounding the identical sequence, where each position is sized off the balance the previous one produced, puts it at $169,638. The gap of $12,119 is not a better trade. It is the same R, sized with discipline, allowed to work on itself.
One position from this week is still open. A EURUSD short entered Thursday at 1.1616 with a stop at 1.1629 has not resolved, and it is excluded from every figure in this recap rather than being counted at its current unrealized value. We will publish it in the week it closes, whichever way it goes. Counting an open position at a favourable mark is the easiest way to make a track record look better than it is, and it is the reason we do not do it.
What we're tuning
Nothing changes on the back of this week. That is the honest answer and it is worth saying plainly, because a recap that recommends an adjustment every week is describing a system that is being tuned by noise rather than by evidence.
The one thing being watched is the EURUSD short that is still open. It entered Thursday at 1.1616 against a stop at 1.1629, and it is deliberately absent from every figure in this article. When it resolves it will be counted in the week it closes, and if the outcome changes anything structural about the EURUSD book we will say so then rather than pre-empting it now.
At a Glance
Week at a glance
Why is the open EURUSD trade not in the numbers?
Because it has not resolved. Counting an open position at its current mark would let an unrealized number flatter the week, and if it reverses the figure would have to be restated. Every total in this article covers the eight trades that closed. The EURUSD short will be counted in full in the week it closes, whichever direction that goes.
How is R calculated in this recap?
On a TP1 baseline. Winners are credited the R distance from entry to the first take-profit and losers are counted at exactly -1R. It is deliberately more conservative than the full-potential R the individual case studies report, so totals stay comparable across periods. The Tuesday US500 short appears here at +2.14R and in its own case study at +4.06R for that reason.
Five wins then two losses. Did something break?
No. Both losses cost exactly 1R, which is what the sizing rule guarantees, and they landed on books with one and two September trades respectively. A single stop-out is not a sample. The system is designed to lose a fixed amount repeatedly and be wrong often, and a 62.5% win rate over eight trades is above the year-to-date 56.82%.
NAS100 won long and lost long in two days. Why?
Because the tape changed and the book did not. Thursday's long entered with yields falling for a third session and VIX and DXY both below their 5-day EMAs. Friday's entered a different configuration and stopped out. Both are torn down in this week's losses report, and neither justifies an adjustment to the book.
Are these real trades?
Yes. Every trade in the table above was placed by the live system with its entry, stop and targets recorded before the outcome was known. The dollar figures are a simulation of what a $100,000 account risking 2% per trade would have produced from that exact sequence.
Get next week’s trades before they print.
Subscribers receive the same pre-trade AI analysis three minutes before entry.
We project the recap totals using a TP1 exit on every winning trade. This is the simplest baseline for comparing across periods. Traders running their own scale-out, trail, or TP2/TP3 hold strategies will see different totals. Dollar figures are simulated on a $100,000 account at 2% risk per trade. Actual subscriber P&L varies with account size and execution. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
From the SkyAnalyst Journal
Three Losses, Three Identical Sizes, and a 3.61 Percent Drawdown
Every loss this week cost exactly 1R. Not approximately, exactly. Two came from the same NAS100 book that also won twice, and the deepest the account got was 3.61 percent below its peak.
Twelve of Thirteen: The Long Book Answers Back at TP3
The desk has now won 12 of its last 13 trades. This one was a NAS100 long, taken against its own Macro Agent, and it ran the full distance to the third target in 53 minutes for +2.84R.
The Cable Short That Entered on Its Lowest Confidence Reading
Four refusals at 79, 81, 82 and 84 percent. Then the system entered at 62, the weakest score of the sequence, and took TP1 for +1.02R. The number was never the trigger.