2026-06-15 · 6 min read
Session edge, AI coach verdict, and running P&L for 2026-06-15.
Trim Review
How much of today's result was carried by a few outliers? The table recomputes the core session stats with the biggest movers removed. Trimmed rows are colored vs baseline: green = holds most of the move, amber = meaningful erosion, red = collapses or flips sign.
| Scenario | Trades | Net P&L | Total R | E[R] / trade | $ WR | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline (all trades) | 28 | +$2552.38 | +2.30R | +0.082R | 60.7% | 1.62 |
| − single best + single worst | 26 | +$2860.39 | +2.58R | +0.099R | 61.5% | 2.18 |
| − top 2 + bottom 2 (≈5% each tail) | 24 | +$2640.98 | +2.38R | +0.099R | 62.5% | 2.53 |
Trimmed trades: Single best + single worst — removed RGNT +$1410.40 (best) · RGNT −$1718.41 (worst). Top 2 + bottom 2 — removed 2 from each tail (by $ P&L).
Broad green session: still clearly green after trimming the biggest movers, so the day was a stack of small plus-EV decisions compounding — not a few home runs.
Session verdict
Net $2.55k on 28 positions with PF 1.62 and 60.7% WR put this day modestly ahead of your 90-day baseline PF 1.37 and WR 47.4%, while a single RGNT round trip between 6:55am and 11:50am PT largely shaped the intraday swings. The +$1.41k RGNT long at 6:55am PT in the $2–3 bucket contributed about 55% of the day’s $2.55k net, while the -$1.72k RGNT long at 11:50am PT in the $10–15 bucket alone exceeded that gain in absolute terms.
Combining those two RGNT trades, you were net -$310 on the ticker that produced both the largest win (+1.27R) and the largest loss (-1.55R), so the remaining 26 positions collectively generated roughly $2.86k. Those 26 non-material trades therefore averaged about +$110 per position versus the headline average win/loss of +$393.79/-$376.55, which pins the day’s result on a broad base of small gains offsetting the RGNT give-back.
Time-of-day stats show $2.19k of P&L from 6:30am-7:00am PT (n=8, 62.5% WR) and $941.39 from 7:00am-7:30am PT (n=11, 72.7% WR), so the morning flow provided about $3.13k before the late RGNT loss and midday drawdown. The 11:30am-12:00pm PT window (n=5, -$1.14k, 40% WR) plus the single -$83.15 trade at 12:00pm-12:30pm PT together accounted for about -$1.22k, which lines up with the -$1.72k RGNT loss being partly offset by smaller midday wins.
Price buckets show $3–5 names (n=12, +$3.10k, 83.3% WR) plus the lone $2–3 RGNT win (+$1.41k) as the clear profit centers, while the $5–10 (n=7, -$764.45) and $10–15 (n=7, -$1.17k) buckets bled a combined -$1.93k, so higher-priced names were net drags. With E[R] at 0.082R vs the 90-day baseline 0.058R and a breakeven $ WR of 48.9% vs today’s 60.7%, the distribution fits a day built from many sub-1R positive outcomes plus one larger negative-R hit rather than outsized upside outliers.
Significance and conceptual math
Today’s E[R] of 0.082R on 28 trades is about 41% higher than your 90-day baseline E[R] of 0.058R, so per-trade expectancy was elevated relative to your recent average. The $ win rate of 60.7% versus the 48.9% breakeven level (from $393.79 average win vs -$376.55 average loss) gives you roughly an 11.8pp cushion, which is enough to absorb a -1.55R, -$1.72k RGNT loss and still finish +$2.55k.
The statistical contrast vs baseline WR (60.7% vs 47.4%, z=1.409, p≈0.1589) does not clear a conventional significance bar for a single 28-trade day but is directionally consistent with the last 7d WR of 50.2% vs 45.7% in the prior 30d. Material-trade math shows the +1.27R, +$1.41k RGNT win and the -1.55R, -$1.72k RGNT loss sum to -$310, so the non-material 26 trades contributed about +$2.86k, which exceeds the entire +$2.55k net and quantifies how much the sub-1R distribution carried the session.
That aligns with the 83.3% WR and +$3.10k in the $3–5 bucket across 12 trades plus the $1.41k in the $2–3 RGNT win, for about +$4.51k from $2–5 names versus -$1.93k combined from $5–10 and $10–15. The 6:30am-7:00am PT block’s +$2.19k (n=8) plus the 7:00am-7:30am PT block’s +$941.39 (n=11) total about +$3.13k, or roughly 122% of the final day net, with later windows giving back about -$1.22k.
With only 2 material trades (|R| ≥ 1R) out of 28 and PF at 1.62 matching the last-7d PF of 1.63 versus 1.38 in the prior 30d, the day’s risk/return profile fits a pattern of many modestly positive decisions in a supportive environment, punctuated by one larger single-name reversal.
What you might have missed
Even with the -1.55R, -$1.72k RGNT loss in the $10–15 bucket, low-priced names still dominated: the $3–5 bucket’s +$3.10k across 12 trades plus the $2–3 RGNT win’s +$1.41k add up to about +$4.51k from $2–5, more than the entire day’s net after absorbing -$1.93k from the $5–10 and $10–15 buckets. The two RGNT trades swung P&L by $3.13k peak-to-trough (+$1.41k then -$1.72k), yet you ended only -$310 on that ticker while the other 26 trades quietly generated about +$2.86k.
Despite identical 42.9% WRs in both the $5–10 and $10–15 buckets, those 14 higher-priced trades still lost -$764.45 and -$1.17k respectively, showing that the same nominal win rate can have very different P&L impact depending on price zone and sizing.
One thing to try next session
For the next session, run an explicit experiment on cross-bucket re-engagement: after booking a ≥+1R gain in a sub-$5 name, prohibit any new entries in that same ticker above $5 for the rest of the day and log how much potential give-back you avoid. In RGNT terms, that rule would have allowed the +1.27R, +$1.41k long at 6:55am PT in the $2–3 bucket but blocked the later $10–15 long at 11:50am PT that cost -1.55R, -$1.72k, letting you measure whether this single constraint would have shifted the day from +$2.55k to roughly +$4.27k.