These are the main concerns I have with your post here. You say that the first trade, put on in Feb, was triggered by your mathematical pattern, but the second and third positions were added to a progressively losing situation in a "pyramid" fashion. You do not say, for example, was your third trade added as a direct consequence of your mathematical signals and patterns, or was it actually a well-executed and professional day trade based on your observation of the market and analysis of the info announcement that triggered that day's huge move? If it was not a direct action based on your method and implemented irrespective of the current market action, and was based on your observations, then it should not be included in your presentation of the results of your method regardless of how good the trade was.
It is commonly stated that it is extremely dangerous practice to pyramid and add further positions to losing trades whether trading is based on fundamental, technical, statistical or any other form of analysis. There are times when one can take a well-calculated risk with adding positions, but it is not in general a good practice and it seems like some 2/3rds of the profit you are demonstrating here are actually the result of this practice and not your original pattern analysis. In fact, one could add that 1/3rd of this profit was in fact the result of your highly successful day trade - a practice which you claim is unprofitable.
The other related issue here is your comment that "it could have gone wrong". Yes, it could but it didn't. This is precisely the point. Your method is based on statistical analysis of historical data resulting in a probability assessment of the likely outcome of a trade setup. It is not a 100% guarantee, it is a high probability. Therefore your comment should really be extended with the caveat that it didn't go wrong "this time".
It may well be that you have a very accurate method, but I don't think a handful of trades, a couple of which were possibly placed based merely on subjective pyramiding rather than specific method signals, is sufficient evidence of consistency over the long term nor justification for taking significant risks in pyramiding losing positions.
Hopefully, you can dismiss my fears with more detail of how your trade timings and levels are decided by your method rather than by your subjective assessment at the time of opening. This is not a criticism, on the contrary, if this was a subjective trade then my compliments to you on a fine example of a day trade!
I look forward to seeing your results as you progress during the year(s) ahead.