thanks for starting this thread, Carl
the wording you chose for the title also raises the bigger question of what is a “better” risk to reward ratio
we can all see that you think of it as bigger reward per unit of risk, rather than the opposite
you mean “higher reward”, really, when you say “better”
the opposite perspective is also an arguable one, though
two points are worth thinking about, in this context
-
if you look at successful professional traders, and institutional traders, they tend to be the ones using a lower “R” and have higher win-rates - it’s quite striking - people posting in forums quite often advise others never to use less than a 1:2 risk to reward ratio (it’s awful advice, but that’s what they often say!), ignoring the fact that most retail traders who do this are losing money, while all the people siitting on trading floors, who are far more successful, are doing exactly the opposite
-
many retail traders who fail, fail because their position-sizing is way too high for their expectancy - the low win-rates you tend to get with higher-reward ratios are terribly difficult for the average retail trader to handle, and most of them don’t really even know how to work out appropriate position-sizing for what they’re doing (they tend to estimate it from their perception of the “longest losing run foreseeable”, which is a horribly bad and inappropriate way to do it, but that’s what commonly happens)