The core is to discover an edge. An edge is found in market structure. A pattern that repeats.. you know when you have an edge... you literally print money. If you struggle, you don't have an edge.
On the other hand, one could argue that the plan is the edge if the plan is based on market structure. (You needn't make a separate post for each sentence)
Really? Lossrate = 1 - winrate They're right, that is boring. Winning isn't everything but that doesn't mean it's nothing. Without winning, there's no point in trading. You can easily minimize your losses by simply not trading. (The above equation applies only to active traders, it is meaningless for non-traders.) People who overemphasize winrate display a lack of understanding of positive expectation. Sure it's nice to have a high winrate but that's not an absolute necessity for success. And those who size their trades on winrate alone are in for a rude awakening.
On the other hand, those who emphasize positive expectation to the exclusion of all else ignore the psychological ramifications of that focus, ignoring as well the fact that the individual who seems to have been the first to apply Expectancy Theory to trading failed as a trader. There is for some reason a decided tendency in at least a few trading forums to assume that a high winrate is always coincident with a low P:L. This need not be the case. If one knows what he's doing and is trading practically rather than theoretically, a reasonably high winrate and a reasonably high P:L are both achievable.
For almost every " you go broke" I can give you an example that you go broke, but I can also give you an example you can become rich. Many times arguing about statements made reminds me of lawyers: depending from if they are defending the criminal or the victim, they have a completely different story for the same facts. Many times it is not: do this but never do that. But more a healthy mixture of this and that. All depends of the way the trader trades.