Think of this, for simplicity sake we make risk/reward 1 to 1 and we risk 10% a trade. If a trade has a 90% winrate but only has say 10 signals a year. After a year we would have 180% times our initial bankroll. How about all equal except with a 70% winrate and 30 signals a year? We would then have 220% times our initial bankroll...Which is even more than the 90% winrate system... All this focus on winrate for that 90-99% winrate system (If it even exists!) but even if there is such a system but has a rare signal you are better off with a lesser winrate system which has much more signals...
In my words... The number of trading opportunities is important. The more the better. The more of those opportunities you manage to catch, the better you are. If you keep on missing catching those opportunities, you end up very angry/frustrated/vengeful.
Just bet everything once on 90% winrate , roll the loaded dice Walk away financially free for live with 90% chance. Hell I will take those odds
It is not the win rate that matters but, the size of the average gains vs the size of the average losses. The best trading systems have only a 30-40% win rate but, the risk/reward (average gain/average loss) is atleast, 3 to 1. The higher the better. Cut your losses and let your winners run. You need those few big outlier trades with huge gains. Most of your trades would probably, have smaller gains and smaller losses with the occasional large losses to boot.
%% THAT must be different from the lost dog ad, with mange , blind in one eye , answers to the name of ''Lucky??'' EVEN with a 90% win rate like some REALTY markets had, in the past; losses can still happen. 180% sounds more like gross than net @ best. Could happen in pearl markets, dont know that one