50-60% win rate, 1:2 R/R

[Handle123]

Obviously trading is extremely competitive. So needing 50%+ win rate (with 50% risk) is obviously harder than ~35%+ win rate (with risk 1-2% risk)

I found this amusing, but I think in ways the competition is within oneself to conquer weaknesses. LOL, 35%, some methods I have developed, WOW WOW 35% would be incredible but really unattainable, am always too early, sometimes by years. So I had to learn ways to seldom lose on overall positions, and this takes years, least for me. Has nothing to do with a psychology weakness of not being able to take a loss, it has to do with equity curve.

Just too stressful for aiming for high percentage win rates, think design by smoothness of equity curve, concentrating on drawdown and lower losing overall.

It's funny when I first started so long ago, profits and winning percentages mattered most and now they are not even in the top 50 stats considered.

We all drawn into markets for different reasons and why I believe "edge" changes as our times expands.

 

[biduece]

If your avg win is 2x your avg loss, over the long-term, in a winning system, you can expect your avg winning pct to gravitate more towards 45-50%. When you get at the avg 60% winners level, long-term, expect your win to loss ratio to drop more towards 1.5. If you're seeing much better results than this then it's either a skew a prolonged period of strong trending or you haven't taken enough trades yet.

Like I've said many times, at the 70% avg winning pct level, avg win vs avg loss gravitates towards a 1:1 ratio (risk $1 to make $1).

Sometimes you'll see people post brokerage statements with fantastic results like 75% winners with an avg reward to risk ratio of 2:1 (i.e. avg win / avg loss). That kind of thing is short-lived and "the math of the market" will correct their out-sized gains over time.

Yes, this is so true.