@algofy , If I were to speculate on
@galvinlee888 's response, it's that he knows the math works, but implied that the conclusion drawn is insufficient for profitability, being based on several assumptions.
1. That any amount of consistency as stable as a winrate is possible, or meaningful. Per that winrate, a system could produce 1000 wins after 9000 losses and still be true, but will the deposit survive the losses? Basically, such ideology relies on the ability to see an infinite number of trades to realize the theoretical winrate. But, variance will kill any portfolio before that happens.
2. Understating the effect of commissions and slippage on such a system. If it's a frequent system with small targets, you pay more in commissions. If it's a slower system with large targets, it is difficult to realize the theoretical winrate, as you can't be too sure if you're doing something wrong or just don't have enough datapoints over a long timeframe. Variance, again.
3. (Speculative) Obviously based on "edge," but efficient market hypothesis would hold that the expectancy of random play would be 0, and that your hypothetical winrate with that risk/reward ratio is so astronomically impressive that it's nigh impossible and not a hypothetical worth discussing, as you'd probably already be a billionaire if you actually had that ability. Might as well also discuss a 99% winrate with a 100:1 reward.
