Ok!

And by the way, welcome to the forum (sorry, have only just noticed that the OP was your first post here).

The arithmetic is very easy, but that isnât really what these situations are about, at all, is it? So âŚ letâs look at 10 trades of each system, each with a position-size of 1 unit (and then there are 10 commissions to pay, to be deducted from the figures shown below in each case).

Wins 2.7 units, losses 1 unit, balance **+1.7** units

Wins 15 units, losses 7 units, balance **+8** units

Wins +6 units, losses -4 units, balance **+2** units

Wins 2.8 units, losses 3 units, balance **-0.2** units

So, we exclude D from our consideration, because it has a negative expectation.

Then we look at the other three, which appear profitable, and see that B is enormously more profitable than either of the other two, and then from there, we each make our own decision in the light of the win-rate of only 30%.

Some people are very put off by this; others are not.

I am put off, because the losing runs will be overwhelming, and my position-sizing will have to be really tiny, to allow for that.

It isnât just consecutive losers that are the problem, naturally.

Itâs all the other times that you win some and lose many and win one or two and lose many more and that keeps on happening, apparently without end, and you donât know where you are, and **you donât know if your system has stopped working or not.**

This is soul-destroying and panic-attack-provoking and all the rest of it.

And if you want to avoid that, you choose system A, where youâll never have big losing runs and can use a decent position-size and still sleep at night.

I choose system A.

Most people will choose system B, of course, because its âexpectationâ is 4 times as high.

Which do you choose, yourself, @krecon ?