You want something that works for years and years but risks blowing up once every ten years. Then trade it with other peoples money (OPM) and collect big fees for the years it works. Like LTCM/Niderhoffer/ARKK etc. So you increase your profit expectation by managing OPM, which means you get to collect fees which you then don't have to give back when you eventually blowup. Hopefully the blowup isn't 100%. Only 80% or something and your investors don't lose too much of their original investments.
Or you could set aside the original principal and play with the house$ only... rebalancing now and then... Working on this concept since May this year...
I believe every randomly entered trade(buy or sell) of an asset or option is objectively a zero expected value trade(fair pricing). If that’s not the case, why would anyone enter the market and take the opposite side of your trade? Ofcourse, we can say some form of technical/fundamental analysis gives us an edge by timing our entry(instead of random) but that is just subjective. Simply put, I see the market as an almost complete random walk. It’s hard to prove that timed market entry is any better than a random coin flip. Example: I buy eurusd(randomly) with a take profit of 25pips and Stop loss of 75pips. Are you telling my win-rate would still be 50/50? I expected my win rate to be 75%, bring me expected value to zero. {25pips*75%-75pips*25%=0 pips} Well someone might say that based on TA, that by not entering trades randomly, the above trade is still a 50/50 win-rate but again that’s subjective. Now imagine I have a coin that heads have a 75% chance of showing up(biased). I bet on heads and every time I loose $1 or make $1, why would anyone take the other side of that bet? That’s similar to my eurusd example above(random work), isn’t it? I am looking at the market from same perspective . I don’t know if you understand my point?