The same S&P 500 end-of-day futures signals, the same entries and exits — only the number of contracts differs. The minimum usable balance differs by mode: the amount you start with decides which mode is available.
Two starting amounts, two modes. Modeled minimum starting capital: $10,000
The whole account sizes each position — the fastest way this S&P 500 trading strategy can compound, and the mode that asks the most of you while a drawdown lasts.
Hypothetical backtest · Reinvest on · Transaction Costs on · Interest on Cash on · Pos. Size 50/50 off · Annual Adjustments off · Normalize Positions on · prices through 2026-09-18. The 500-contract cap is reached later on a small account, which lifts the long horizons.
Half the account sizes each position, the other half stays in cash and earns interest. The same signals with approximately half the worst-start drawdown — and in the simulation every one of the 8,639 accounts remained above the modeled minimum required for one contract.
Hypothetical backtest · Reinvest on · Transaction Costs on · Interest on Cash on · Pos. Size 50/50 on · Annual Adjustments off · Normalize Positions on · prices through 2026-09-18.
2000 to today · S&P 500 futures (MES) · costs and interest included
| Full size · $25,000 | 50/50 · $25,000 | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual return (CAGR) | 28.2% | 27.2% |
| Max DD (worst entry) | 30.7% | 14.8% |
| Max DD (catastrophe sim.) | 89.0% | 43.0% |
| Accounts that could no longer trade | 494 in 8,639 | 0 in 8,639 |
On the same account, 50/50 gives up about 1.0 of a percentage point of annual return and roughly halves the fall you have to sit through. That is the whole trade-off.
Backtester settings for every figure on this page: preset per row · MES · Reinvest profits on · Transaction Costs on · Interest on Cash on · Annual Adjustments off · Normalize Positions on · prices through 2026-09-18. Set the same switches in the app and the numbers are reproducible.
The two columns above start from different amounts, so their returns are not directly comparable: at $10,000 the 500-contract cap is reached later, which lifts the full-size figure. The 1.0-point difference is measured with both modes on $25,000.
Limits of the Comparison
The catastrophe figure did not happen. On the real price history the deepest fall was 30.7% in full size and 14.8% in 50/50. Max DD (catastrophe sim.) comes from running the same rules against 105 deliberately distorted versions of that history, entered on every possible day — 8,639 simulated accounts. It is the single worst of them. How the simulation works · the risk section of the report.
A stop is not a guarantee. Futures gap. A price can reopen past your stop, and then the loss is larger than planned.
Below the contract threshold the loss is final. A position needs about $7,000 of the account to exist at all ($14,000 in 50/50). An account that falls below that has no next trade.
Short answers — the numbers behind them are in the report
It follows from your starting capital, not from how bold you feel. From $25,000 upwards both modes are usable; 50/50 showed the smaller drawdown, full size the higher return: measured from the same $25,000 starting capital it costs about 1.0 of a percentage point of annual return and roughly halves the drawdown. Between $10,000 and $25,000 only full size is possible, because in 50/50 just half the account sizes the position.
Half the account sizes each position, the other half stays in cash and earns the broker rate. The signals are identical in both modes — only the number of contracts changes.
Full size starts at $10,000, 50/50 at $25,000. Below $10,000 a single Micro E-mini contract already ties up too much of the account for the position sizing to work.
In the 2000-to-today backtest, 27.2% a year at $25,000 against 28.2% for full size at $10,000. The drawdown measured against the money paid in falls from 30.7% to 14.8%.
Every number here is worked out in the report