Hi, thanks for your feedback!

> I would encourage you to read the books "Antifragile" and "The Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb. The risk you're running may have low probability, but also has massive effects when it does occur, and such events are responsible for a major part of both gains and losses in financial markets.

I understand where you are pointing out at:
First, the engine exits on distinct loss-thresholds, reducing the loss. Sice stocks mainly move in (sometimes only short-term) trends, i do not see why such an instrument should include more risk than an the stock itself, apart from the fact that the loss may be multiplied.
With "risk free" (hence the quotes) i'm referring to the risk of complete loss/total crash of a position. For sure, the system does not invest all-in into one symbol! :)
(max 2% of the total capital, according to std. risk management practices)

For sure: None of the systems will be always right, but if your quote is good enough, then there is a high chance of making very good money; the system is not about "predicting the stock price" on some fancy ML stuff, its just a solid trend-following algotrithm. And yes, the system will loose money! As every "manual" trader does.
The advantage is mainly that such a system is capable of managing a lot of positions and tracking them - you could do this on your own, manually, but its exhausting/boring/prone to errors etc.
And yes, there are a lot of unpredictable events, therefore risk management is very important and at the core of the system.

I like the comparison to sport betting - though i think its not correct:
In gambling, you either win or loose - but on the stock market i can exit and minimize my loss early enough to not to loose everything.
(i have never done a sport bet, nor will i do - but this is my understanding of sports betting? its like "binary options" in financial terms, an instrument i would never touch...)

And: large mega-corp stocks are not that volatile to be in a higher risk than buying the stock itself: a big-co stock has a volatility of ~1 - 2% per week (ye, Nvidia is an exception!), this volatility is absolutely in a range i can sleep better with.

Another comparison: What is more realistic?
Scenario A: you are getting fired tomorrow by your boss since he doesnt like your fresh haircut?
Scenario B: that 50 - 60 stock market positions on the 100 biggest companies globally are crashing all at the same day?

Actually, i can sleep much better with the latter dependency than with the former one.

> maybe you haven't done your research on how sophisticated other bots are.
Maybe not as solid as you did, but my question is:
Where are all the highly profitable quant bot owners if there are so super-alien-sophisticated strategies which much more "intelligence"?

After doing my initial research, i come to the following conclusion:
A) mighty banks & MFI have better knowledge/knowhow/infrastructure and they are the only ones who are moving the market
B) most people claim to have a super-mega-system while they are actually cooking with water as everybody else
C) simpler systems works much better than any voodoo-magic-boohoo implementation: a friend of me also did some ML-implementation these days on the same topic with some latest research papers: his numbers are not better than mine, while applying a muuuuccchhh more complex tech stack

And my last 2 cent to the sports betting comparison (since i have heard it quite some times):
I'd say most games are manipualted, esp. in smaller leagues - while it is unlikely that someone is big enough to "manipulate" NVDA or QCOM, id guess?