Which martingale multiplier is safer: 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 or 2? The arithmetic side by side

No multiplier is safe by itself: with the same first lot 0.01 a lower multiplier only looks safer because the basket is smaller (0.28 lots at ×1.2 against 20.47 at ×2), and once the risk is equal — about 20.5 lots and a stop-out $61–66 below the first order on $1,000 — ×1.2 needs a $6.41 pullback from the last order to break even against $1.94 at ×2.

Arithmetic of settings, not a forecast and not advice. Trading with leverage carries risk: if the deposit is too small, a stop-out is possible.

See also: 7 protections for a martingale grid bot on gold →

What does the martingale multiplier do?

The multiplier (lot multiplier) sets how much bigger each new order of a grid is than the previous one. With ×2 the lots are 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.08…; with ×1.5 they grow by half each time; with ×1.2 by a fifth. A bigger multiplier pulls the basket's break-even closer to the last order, so a short pullback closes the whole basket. The price is the size of the basket at the bottom: its total lots, or tonnage, decide how fast the deposit melts if price keeps going.

All examples: cent account, deposit $1,000, step $1.95, 11 orders, gold at $4,170, leverage 1:2000, stop-out 40%, no spread. Lots are rounded down to 0.01, as a broker does. A buy basket is shown; a sell basket is the mirror image.

Comparison 1: same first lot 0.01

This is how the question is usually asked: "should I use 1.5 instead of 2?"

"Far beyond $400": the formula gives more than 10% of the gold price, where a fixed-margin model is no longer accurate; the point is that the basket is tiny.

At first sight ×1.2 wins by a mile. But compare the total lots: 0.28 against 20.47, about 73 times less. A ×1.2 grid from 0.01 is simply a much smaller position, and it earns accordingly. The fair question is what each multiplier does for the same risk.

Comparison 2: same risk (equal total lots)

Here the first lot is raised for the lower multipliers until the full basket carries about the same total lots as ×2 from 0.01, so every $1 of gold against a full basket costs about the same.

What the table says:

1. The stop-out barely moves. $60.95 to $65.58: at equal tonnage the multiplier does not buy room. The total lots decide that.
2. The lower the multiplier, the bigger the pullback a deep basket needs. At ×1.2 the full basket closes only after gold comes back $6.41 from the last order, more than three steps; at ×2, $1.94, one step.
3. The lower multiplier earns more on small baskets because its first orders are bigger ($2.32 against $0.07 for the same 3-order basket closed $1 above break-even), and it sits in a deeper floating loss on ordinary days: −$52.83 at the 8th order against −$4.82.

So a lower multiplier is a different trade-off, not a safer one: more income from small baskets and a larger everyday drawdown, paid for with deep baskets that need a much bigger rebound.

Comparison 3: same deposit, a $100 move to survive

Now fix the goal: $1,000 must survive gold going $100 against the first order with 11 orders. What is the largest first lot each multiplier allows?

With 11 orders, ×2 cannot reach $100 on $1,000 even at the minimum lot: the 11th order alone is 10.24 lots. The lower multipliers can, and they all land at about 10–11 total lots. For ×2 the same room comes from fewer orders: 10 orders from 0.01 give $112.54 (grid step, multiplier and order count).

Why does a lower multiplier need a bigger rebound?

The break-even of a basket is the lot-weighted average of its entry prices. With ×2 the last order is about half of the whole basket, so the average sits close to it: about one step above the bottom. With ×1.2 the orders are similar in size, the average stays near the middle of the ladder, and the price must climb back a long way.

From the averaging break-even calculator, the pullback from each order to break even (the first lot changes them only slightly, through rounding to 0.01):

A bigger rebound means a deep basket stays open longer, pays more swap and spends more time exposed to the next leg of the move.

So which multiplier should I use?

There is no universal answer, but there is an order of decisions:

1. Decide the move you want to survive and your deposit per 0.01 lot. That sets the total lots you can afford.
2. Then choose the shape: ×2 with fewer orders closes deep baskets on a short pullback; ×1.3–1.5 with more orders earns more on small baskets and needs longer rebounds. Equal tonnage means roughly equal stop-out.
3. Check the shape on real ticks: how often deep baskets formed and how long they stayed open.

The martingale lot size calculator finds the largest first lot for your deposit and move; the averaging break-even calculator shows the rebound each multiplier needs.

FAQ

Is a martingale multiplier of 1.5 safer than 2?

Only if the basket ends up smaller. From the same first lot 0.01 it is (1.67 total lots against 20.47), but it also earns much less. At equal total lots, ×1.5 from 0.12 reaches stop-out on $1,000 at $63.85 against $65.58 for ×2, and needs a $3.64 pullback from the last order instead of $1.94.

What multiplier do most grid EAs use?

Values from about 1.3 to 2 are common. The number alone says little: what matters is the total lots of the full basket for your deposit, which depends on multiplier, first lot and number of orders together.

Why does ×1.2 from 0.01 look so safe in the calculator?

Because 11 orders at ×1.2 from 0.01 add up to only 0.28 lots, so the basket is tiny for a $1,000 account. Raise the first lot until the risk equals a ×2 grid and the advantage disappears.

Does a lower multiplier reduce drawdown?

It reduces drawdown only at the same first lot, because the position is smaller. At equal total lots it increases the everyday floating loss: at the 8th order −$52.83 at ×1.2 against −$4.82 at ×2.

How do I compare multipliers for my own deposit?

Enter your deposit, step and orders in the grid calculator, change only the multiplier and the first lot until the total lots match, and compare the stop-out distance and the pullback to break even.