It is useful though (not that this isn't useful!) to calculate a number of equity curves by randomly distributing wins/losses as exactly where these occur can make a surprisingly big difference to the end result.
I agree with Mr Skill Leverage and RedGreenBen, but it can be quantified.
In a theoretically ideal trading scenario, the order of wins / losses will not make any difference to the end result. In theory, your account equity should be at least equal to the sum of your losing trades, in case they all happen off the first ball.
And with such high account equity, looking at your wins/losses, you will always end up with the same result no matter what their order, even with money management - if you're familiar with optimal f (more below).
One thing I've been considering is to use a number of randomly distributed wins and losses to build up a picture of the distribution of maximum draw-downs, so I can see what 1, 2 and 3 standard deviations out from the mean looks like.
In reality it's massively over-conservative to demand a high-enough account equity to deal with all the losses happening in one almighty draw-down.
So you decide what level of risk you can live with. Risk-of-ruin, I mean.
With money management, looking at a wins and losses history, your end result is proportional to the leverage and the account size, based on (a) the biggest loss you think you'll have in the future and (b) the biggest drawdown you're prepared to suffer.
There is an ideal fixed fraction of equity to commit to each trade (in terms of money management) and it's not necessarily the oft-quoted 2% or 5% per trade, and it's not dependent on (b) above - unless it overruns your expectations
The fixed fraction is inversely proportional to your biggest loss. Again, you have to decide for yourself what your biggest loss might be, either using your best estimation, or just a number that comes to you in a nightmare, because the markets will guarantee you it is bigger than the one in your wins/losses history in your spreadsheet.
It makes perfect sense until you realize that the answer is to risk 24% (in my case) of capital on each trade :-0.
The calculation is still valid, if you correct the Kelly Formula - which relies on the biggest loss being the one you saw in your trade history.
I think if you look at this whole area in a quantitative way (and I have, to the point where my gf nearly left me) then all you really learn is that you have to expect big draw-downs, you have to expect a lot of variability in returns and to be able to say something statistically sound about a system/strategy you need to multiply that already large sample size by pi!*
Why pi ?
