P&L When Followed vs Violated

Side by side: what this rule earned you when you followed it, and what it cost you when you didn't. Proof of which rules earn their place. In Limbix, P&L when followed vs violated splits one playbook's trades by a single rule and totals the net P&L on each side.

How it's calculated#

$$\begin{aligned} \text{P\&L when violated} &= \sum_{\text{playbook trades that broke the rule}} \text{net P\&L} \\ \text{P\&L when followed} &= \sum_{\text{all other playbook trades}} \text{net P\&L} \end{aligned}$$

Playbook trades

Every trade ever linked to this playbook.

Broke the rule

Trades where you marked this rule as violated.

Net P&L

After fees. Winners and losers both count, on both sides.

For each rule on a playbook, Limbix splits every trade linked to that playbook into two groups:

• Violated: trades where you marked this rule as broken.
• Followed: all the other trades linked to the playbook.

It then sums the net P&L of each group. Unlike Cost of Violations, wins count on both sides. The question here isn't "what did breaking this rule cost?" but "does this rule separate good trades from bad ones?"

The two figures are totals, not averages. The groups are usually different sizes, so divide each by its trade count before you compare them.

Worked example#

Your playbook "ORB" has 12 linked trades. You marked the rule "No entries in the first 5 minutes" as broken on 4 of them.

When you kept the rule, ORB made €120 a trade. When you broke it, it lost €75 a trade. That rule is earning its place.

For the same rule, Rule Compliance is 8 ÷ 12 = 66.7%. Its violation cost, the figure the playbook's cost sentence uses, counts only the losers among the violations: −€200 − €150 − €50 = −€400.

When it shows "—"#

Always read the trade count beside each total. €0 from zero trades is not the same as €0 from ten.

What does a good P&L when followed vs violated look like?#

There's no band. A rule is pulling its weight when P&L per trade is clearly better on the followed side. Treat small samples with care: five violations are not proof either way.

How to improve it#

1. Mark violations on every trade. The split is only as honest as your marking. See mark rule violations.
2. Rewrite rules that don't separate outcomes. If both sides earn the same per trade, make the rule more specific or remove it. See add a rule.
3. Pair it with compliance. A rule that earns its place and is often broken is your highest-value habit to fix. See Rule Compliance.

Where you'll see it#

Frequently asked questions#

How do I know if my trading rules actually work?#

Compare what your trades made when you kept a rule with what they made when you broke it, per trade. If breaking the rule loses money and keeping it makes money, the rule works. If the two sides look the same, the rule isn't changing your results. Limbix computes both totals for each rule on a playbook.

How is this different from Cost of Violations?#

Cost of Violations counts only the losses on rule-breaking trades, across all your rules and impulsive trades. This metric keeps wins and losses on both sides, for one rule on one playbook. The first tells you what breaking rules cost. This one tells you whether a particular rule is worth keeping.

What if I broke a rule and the trade still won?#

It counts on the violated side, as a win. That's the point: if rule-breaking trades often win, the rule may not be protecting you. Look at the per-trade figures and the number of trades before deciding. A few lucky breaks don't prove a rule is useless.