lots of unrealistic hopes on this thread!
80% winner
risk to reward 1:2
your expectancy is ((80*2) - (20 *1))/100 = 1.4
this system is no better than a system say
40% win with risk to reward 1:5
expectancy 1.4
so you need not necessarily have high win rate. you can arrive at the destination in multiple paths.
t would be far better to use the one with the 80% win-rate rather than the 40% win-rate, if only because the risk-management parameters will be much easier to operate, and the losing runs much shorter, etc.
What you say is disadvantage may be a non issue to somebody. One of the major problems in we humans is we tend to generalize too much. I have been guilty of the same in the past.
In the second example there is room for improvement in win percentage from 40% to say 50% creating a massive increase in expectancy
where as in the 1st method there is no room for improvement in win percentage ..as it is already pushing its limit ...so I might argue the second method is better.
Bpras the range is 70 to 90 I will take average 80% winner
risk to reward 1:2
your expectancy is ((80*2) - (20 *1))/100 = 1.4
this system is no better than a system say
40% win with risk to reward 1:5
expectancy 1.4
so you need not necessarily have high win rate. you can arrive at the destination in multiple paths.
By the way 1.4 expectancy is pretty darn good
ROFLMAO that's a great post! HOWEVER, why wouldn't you want a high win rate? Is your mind made up against a high win rate?Yes - both good points: I agree.
To be honest, I don't think it's a great discussion for forums. One is inevitably "preaching only to the converted" which is, ultimately, a waste of anyone's time. The people whose opinions are actually informed by a fixed underlying belief that "as high a win-rate as possible is the most important principle of systematic trading" typically don't listen; it seems to me that the primary motivation for their apparent desire to engage at all in the discussion is simply to "Be Right". I strongly suspect that for the most part it's themselves they're really trying to convince, though they'll never say so (probably including "to themselves"!). So I've said enough, here (some would doubtless say "too much").![]()