WR
Corgi U.S. War Machine ETF
stock BATS

Working on to move the WR to around 70% and RR to slightly lower for healthy consistency. The stats are for last two weeks of the strategy that trades USDJPY intraday. If my WR and RR ratio is healthy all I am caring about is to keep my DD below 10% for the long run.

Well...15-20 trades could definitely mean something on its own, depending on the supposed win rate of the strategy:
A 50% WR strategy with 20 losses in a row is a problem. The chance of that happening during a stretch of 1000 trades, is about 0.1% (roughly 0.5\^20 \* 1000), which is low enough to warrant genuine concern about edge decay.
But for a 65% WR, the probability increases to roughly 18%. So what you're saying is only true for very high win rate strategies.

Hey, respect the effort, but can u please not reply to comments with copy and paste comments from AI.
Like people are trying to help u and all u do is copy comment and tell AI respond to this guy, and then c&p back.
Like we all have been thinking how algo trading is easy now that we have AI but we had no f clue what we are doing and dont u think having 100% WR is a bit to good to be true?
Have a good day

Hopefully understood that participation trophies aren't handed out at Morgan Stanley, Goldman, or other high ranking firms. So, the edge naysayers weighing in on my Blackjack strat, I'd like to hear informed comments.
Hypothetical, on real traded data to date. A board review called on losing a major client, because money goes where it's treated best, might play out as the following.
"Jones here, called BS on the guy at Goldman that has returned a double, plus, with 90% WR last quarter. Jones' statistical analysis showed there was no edge, so our client left when GS wooed him away."
Would not like to be Jones, called on the carpet, to justify his selection of those 2 title choices.
https://preview.redd.it/k37azw30w8bh1.png?width=1525&format=png&auto=webp&s=fc12485519b307eb510e8b8d3383312e26832cf0
There are procedures on the modified Martingale depicted, that I'm willing to detail after the 90-day run, but even an early close appears to beat MIT single pooled bank & strat best effort with high probability. The insert normalizes the MIT Blackjack Team's 9-year best run against their OG strat best case (26%/month), shows WR of 56% knocks down realized gain to only 4%/month. Comp'd against mine (where the dealer's "shoe" is the SPY, face cards are VWAP, VIX, Price Action..., pretty sure you've seen my stuff last day or two), a WR of only 31% still beats the MIT strat (their's acknowledged "edgy" because of biometric investments at casinos to ban skilled "players").
Presented for entertainment and to provoke thoughts (hopefully not snark). It's the Socratic Process, everyone gains. I'm simply letting the class of those interested do the remaining heavy lifting.
"Not financial advice"

I had a strategy that had 28% WR but was printing money big wins small losses... tested it for three weeks in a row consistently made money... then one day it lost 5000$ kept taking trades instantly losing and getting stopped out.. now I won't promote any strategy with anything less then 55% WR longevity is the goal for me..

10% per trade at 5-10x leverage is your actual problem, not the strategy. Even a real edge blows up at those levels. Most people running profitable systems risk 0.5-2%.
Win rate is a distraction btw. What matters is expectancy after costs. 40% WR can print money, 80% WR can blow up.
On the LLM idea, don't. It won't fix look-ahead bias or execution costs. My own system is boring hardcoded rules with fixed SL, one position at a time, no ML. Been running live for months and it holds up because the logic is simple enough to actually debug. Pick one, run it small for 3 months, and diagnose what breaks. That's where the real learning is imo

The strategy as it was then became unprofitable. But as one does, I've iterated on it to see if different trade management approach can get the edge back.

Have since switched to an ATR based SL on a higher time frame. Have much lower WR but with positive expectancy. I suspect it's more a case of letting a few winners run than anything else.
I haven't incorporated sharpe ratio or Monte Carlo analysis into my backtesting yet. Worried draw down issues, etc.
I'll probably run into all the other backtesting issues that you mentioned trying to claw the edge back.

For me it was fees. Found a promising strat with \~57% WR on 15m time frame. But because of the short time frame, fees were roughly additional 30% of risk. So instead of going for 1:1 Risk/Reward it was actually 1.3:1 Risk/Reward. Strategy didn't translate to higher time frames.
How do people deal with this when they scalp?!

I wasnt. I used super complex, multi timeframe strategy, i would pull off 20% WR with 1:2 RR. I feel like in swing trading there is a lot of subjectivity, lots of waiting and you would need more time to gather live data (swing trading gives you 4 setups per month, while day trading cam give 20). Additionaly, i trade liquidity sweeps, that are muuuch more mechanical. Its just what i prefer, and note that i am not profitable, not a pro in this field so my oppinion might be worthless :D

Whatever your edge, if the trades close as winners, your approach "fits". Fit, like greed, is good. Too much of a good thing, detractors say it's "overfit", ephemeral, not repeatable. Who's to say with objectivity, what defines that threshold? I present this for your review.
https://preview.redd.it/nac8pm4nc0bh1.png?width=1214&format=png&auto=webp&s=3994da4f7e935f6c4e0c1663ad2b4a2842dad0d8
The MIT Team found their statistical edge counting face cards (10-Ace) in blackjack, drawn from a multi-deck "shoe". The OG team objective was a double on the pooled "bank" in 90 days (26%/mo compounded). Initially, a $25,000 bank was allocated. Success pushed the limits, and it became difficult to close on the target, so it simply timed out at the 3 month point.
Another bank was formed with new recruits that passed testing. It was found to be a successful endeavor, run 4x per year. Accounts describe a best run of just under 9 years that returned 35x, or roughly 50% gain per year, compounded. Near RenTech-ish levels of 60+%/yr (<40%/yr, net of fees for the Medallion Fund).
I saw a dual to blackjack face card counting, using SPY as the dispensing "shoe" with face cards being VWAP, VIX, Price Action & inflection clusters synchronized to the Fourier cyclic in the chart above, all conveniently presented for best visual integration. Like an F-35 Head Up Display, the presentation requires a little effort to understand.
Drawing your attention to opening the last trade, the sine up-slope was near exhaustion. A Put with an expiry towards the long end was selected. The market has run uptrend from trade inception, requiring Martingale-esque cost basis improvement (past trades reflect this at 400 scale). The dotted purple reflects closure to target from last position. The solid blues were daily closing prices, if the bank were liquidated to that point. Helpful in Martingale assessment.
Plenty of time to run multiple sine up-slopes relative to August monthly expiry (risky), maybe a best case to close near crossing the blue trend line. Doing that, there's still time to run the bank before the 90 day limit is hit.
Someone ran a statistical assessment on "edge" determination, results concluding there was none. I believe some assumptions were flawed, so GIGO. My interpretation on this new algo run, it's more than 29 lucky coin flips (of 32 total, a WR of >90%), getting me to 286% compounded from 4/28. Best fit (blue line scaled) was a Fibonacci monthly rate, so 1.618\^3=4.236, or 323.6% at the 90 day limit. Easily a beat on MIT's double (theirs, often unattainable, from accounts read).
Assuming MIT Team funding required an edge statistically demonstrated, their target was largely surpassed in my trading history (running above red line). An apples to pomegranates comparison, but it's not like running all trades at/near parity, save for one moonshot for the beat. Unless you can accurately land your own Apollo 12 near Surveyor 3 (the iconic Cold War picture that told Kremlin-ites their dachas could be pinpointed with ICBMs), that's not an edge just anyone (save for Rudy Kalman) could engineer.
So, intelligent analysts care to refute that an edge exists? Please share assumptions. One approach, model trades with State Transition Matrix, interpolate/smooth trend, use Hidden Markov Model with State Probability (hey I mentioned Kalman, didn't I?).
Thanks, mates.

Nice well done bro, Yh it comes down to trading less, weird how you see new traders taking 3-4 trades a day sometimes more. I take 1–2 per week but they are high confluence, high WR and good RR. I was profitable within first 6 months of trading. I notice it’s mostly psychology when you master that it’s fairly easy. I do the same thing day in day out, my opinion on the market is irrelevant. I just read it and act regardless of what I THINK will happen. That changed a lot for me

Maybe try switching to a strategy that works with your psychology. Since you have been handling consistent losses and want to hit home runs, essentially. Try a strategy that allows for High RR but lower WR.