I'm sure it would, if each of the five had both a genuine edge and appropriate position-sizing.
But when you look at the extreme difficulty that people taking up trading typically experience in coming up with one strategy that has both a genuine edge and appropriate position-sizing, and when you look at how very difficult and counterintuitive it typically is for them even to be able to learn to tell confidently what has a genuine edge and what doesn't, and how to work out appropriate position-sizing, it's perhaps not very realistic to imagine that any of them will come up with five?
The reality is that, for the typical developing trader, "high win rates" are a counterproductive illusion and a handicap.
It's all too easy for them to assume, consciously or subconsciously, that "as long as my win rates are high enough and as long as my methods trade often enough, then somehow everything else will probably work out ok".
It's precisely because so many people believe that, that the success rates are so tiny, and that most people venturing into forex trading eventually end up dropping out without ever having become successful at all, and without really understanding why, either.
If people started off, instead, by developing some initial understanding of why high-win-rate systems are usually illusory and counterproductive for all but institutional traders, they'd actually have considerably better chances.
It's not as if there's any shortage of beginners' trading books explaining it clearly enough, either. The problem is that most of them try to learn to trade from online sources, instead, so they're rarely exposed to this essential introductory information.
It isn't what most people want to hear, either (and some are so attached to their own optimistic and misguided perspectives that they'll even try to challenge or dispute it!).
There was a discussion here yesterday, on this very point. If you read onwards from this post of Justshell's, you'll see what I mean.