The reason we keep going on about the folly of win-loss ratios is that (besides being dangerously wrong) it only works if all prop traders or trading systems have the same disribution of returns and that distribution is symmetric. If the distribution is assymetric, the break-even win-loss ratio might be extremely high (e.g., a 90% win rate results in bankruptcy) or extremely low (e.g., a 10% win rate leads to riches).
You seem to be ignoring my message to Outrun on January 9: "
Potential asymmetry of portfolio returns is a well-documented issue. So one needs to make sure that the expected returns and Sharpe ratio are positive and large, as much as live testing and backtesting allow. However, this is not enough..."
I may be wrong, I hope I am, but you sound like you have just put down an intermediate-level probability or risk management book and want to share it with the world. Do you trade? What is your trading performance? More importantly, were you able to consistently make money on a strategy where "10% win rate leads to riches"? Or is this just an idealization which your mind has build based on abstract probabilistic arguments? And how do you know that it is 10% rate and not 5% rate? Do you really know the joint distribution of all relevant financial variables, today, tomorrow?... One useful thing that Outrun did is he initiated the discussion of
reinforcement learning. And reinforcement learning teaches us that oftentimes the underlying distribution is unknown. So one has to learn on the run and
constantly adapt the strategies to recent history of actions and rewards... Every trade matters, especially an unsuccessful one, because it may signal structural changes in the market.