Sure. With an open mind we explore alternative ways to pay for a string of losses besides the conventional raising of the reward to risk ratio (pushing the target further). I think I've said enough to entice creative types. I will only respond to productive discussion.
I get strings of losses due to two reasons - sudden increase in volatility and trend failure. But I don't find either significantly damaging to the account. They're annoying but I think of them as inevitable. Why should I get involved in trying to eliminate these strings?
I never said we're eliminating the string of losses, we have ways of reducing the loss count but thats not whats being discussed here.
My first year of trading, I lost $36K, 2nd year I gained $28K. 3rd year I’ll be paying taxes. I think I have developed a strategy of not losing. Most of the time I start losing at the end of trading day I end up gaining.
The thing about "strings" of losing (or profitable) trades is that the sequence is, for lack of a better word, is random. And this applies to any instrument, not only forex. If you've tested a strategy with a 99% win ratio based on one million trades, you can not predict the order, the sequence, of the 1% of fail trades. A string of ten thousand losses consecutively, remains within the overall results/expectations of the strategy. In this example, there is no indication the strategy is faulty or failing. Altering the R:R in effect, is creation of a new strategy invalidating the previous test results. IMO, it's not very different than revenge trading... not a sound or lasting solution. As an alternative "way to pay", adjusting R:R is an attempt to "fix" the trader, not the strategy.
Firms don't hire traders with these beliefs in randomness, but your opinion is understandable even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Such conceptions are fed to us in culture and movies.