#ShareWeekly Grade Your Own Week in Six Numbers: The Expectancy Framework I Use Every Friday

Most weekly reviews are stories. Profitable traders keep scorecards. If you want your market insights to improve month over month, replace the narrative with six numbers - and be honest about the benchmark you were actually paid to beat.

THE BENCHMARKS FOR THIS WEEK
BTC: about -1.8% on the week, though up roughly 1.8% to 2.5% over the last 24 hours.
ETH: about +2.4% on the week, with a 7.2% day inside it.
SOL: effectively flat at +0.09% on the week, with a 3.4% day inside it.
Total market cap: near $2.75T, up about 1.1% over 24 hours, on roughly $104.4B of volume.
Context: BTC dominance 58.8%, ETH dominance 11.83%, Altcoin Season Index 38, Fear & Greed 71.

THE SIX NUMBERS
One: number of trades taken. Two: win rate. Three: average winner measured in R, where 1R is the amount risked on the trade. Four: average loser in R. Five: expectancy, calculated as win rate multiplied by average winner, minus loss rate multiplied by average loser. Six: the largest single loss and the deepest adverse excursion on your best idea.

Expectancy is the only one that matters long term, and it exposes the most common self-deception in trading - obsessing over win rate. Run the math: a strategy winning 45% of the time with 4R winners and 1R losers produces +1.25R per trade. A strategy winning 50% of the time with 2.5R winners and 1R losers produces +0.75R. A strategy winning only 35% of the time but making 5R on winners produces +1.10R. The 35% strategy beats the 50% strategy. Win rate is a comfort metric, not a profitability metric.

A WORKED EXAMPLE FROM THIS WEEK
Take BTC's 24-hour range of roughly $76,022 to $79,874. A long entered near $76,000 with invalidation at $75,400 - just under the liquidation cluster at $75,415 - risked $600 to target $79,900, a reward of $3,900, or 6.5R. That is the version of the trade the week rewarded.

Now take the same idea entered at $79,000 with a $76,800 stop. The risk was $2,200, the trade went nowhere that day, and it produced -1R. Identical thesis, opposite result, and the difference was entirely the entry level relative to the structure. That is the number your review should capture, not the story about why BTC "should" have gone higher.

BEAT THE RIGHT BENCHMARK
Two comparison lines make your scorecard meaningful. First, the market itself: if total market cap gained 1.1% and your equity did less after fees, you were paid nothing for the risk you took. Second, the passive alternative: staked ETH yields about 2.59% annualised, which is roughly 0.05% per week. If a week of leveraged exposure cannot clear that number after costs, the risk was not compensated - no matter how exciting the tape felt.

WHY THE LEVELS ARE PART OF THE REVIEW
Position sizing only makes sense against structure. Roughly $1.42B of long liquidation intensity sits below $75,415 on BTC, while only about $298M of short intensity sits above $82,275. Stops placed inside a crowded liquidation pocket are stops that get harvested. The review question is not "was my stop too tight" but "was my stop on the other side of the fuel".

Publishing reviews with numbers - expectancy, R multiples, benchmarks - is what makes a track record auditable rather than aspirational, and it is exactly the kind of trade review a weekly scoreboard like #ShareWeekly was built to surface.