A trader that i respect a lot once said that a long-term sucesfull trading strategy will have more losing trades than winning trades, because that's the nature of the game. The key for him was to craft the strategy and its money management in such a way that when you have a winning trade, you make more money than you lose on a losing trade. So, I am testing two strategies. Strategy A makes let's say 1000$ over 25 trades over 20 days. It has 11 winners and 14 losers Another strategy B makes 2000$ over 28 trades over 20 days. It has 13 winners and 5 losers. (Obviously this is a small time period so more backtesting/live testing is required. ) My question is: do you agree with the statement or idea that most stratagies have more losers than winners and that the "edge" comes from having the winners make more than the losers lose? In that case, do you think strategy B (the one that made more, but had more winners) is just on a "lucky" streak and when it evens out to havig more losers than winners it will make less money? I know without specifics it's hard to say, but i'm really asking this as more of a philosophical question on the nature of winning/losing trade ratio as they relate to strategies.