I appreciate your feedback to the "La case" mentioned above. Let me pass a remark:
1.) "La" actually considers the risk adjustments to VaR. That's why on the y-axis the following text is displayed:
"Positions Returns Adjusted By VaR (10 %)"
However I admit that this is confusing when reading the following explanation to "La" (the latter seems to be not accurat):
In most cases La stats are correct and actually consider "Positions Returns Adjusted By VaR (10 %)" as they should. But unfortunately there also are several errors on many DARWINs (see above).
2.) I already told two Darwinex staff members about the "La problem" and both had no explanation for said issue. So it seems to be not a simple misunderstanding or due to my lack of knowledge about DARWIN stats as you assumed.
3.) When saying "And such errors make some DARWINs seem to be very good managed regarding reward to risk although they actually are based on gambling..." I didn't refer to ERQ. I only mentioned your DARWIN because of the extreme "67.87 %" case. I personally conisder ERQ as one of the best products here on Darwinex and even was invested in it for a while. The reason why I withdrew was/is that I decided not to put my money into DARWINs anymore that are based on high winning rates with rare bigger losses. The problem is that it is very hard to predict their distribution in future simply due to the lack of representativity within past results. It's just a statistical problem that can't be solved resp. you'd need decades of track record to get an appropriate representativity. But that is just my 2 cents here...
4.) "Return / Risk (since inception)" on a DARWIN's page has nothing to do with "La" stats but is something totally different. A number over 2 has statistically beaten 97.7% or more random strategies etc. I personally would prefer something like a profit factor here but that's an old discussion...
I wish you maximum success with ERQ and CWT,