There's an interesting irony in how people discuss strategies. Someone posts their net asset value (NAV) curve, and people immediately focus on the drawdown: how deep it is, how long it lasts, and why it makes the strategy untradeable. "Look at that 40% drawdown, I wouldn't touch that stuff." They seem oblivious to the fact that their criticism precisely describes the fundamental reason the strategy works. They point out specific characteristics that create an advantage, yet use them as evidence of a flawed strategy. All these strategies are terrible. All strategies are. But the people running these strategies are paid because they're willing to accept what others can't. The advantage exists precisely because most people, with just a glance at those drawdown curves, immediately reject the entire strategy. Rewards are directly linked to tolerating conditions most people can't. You can't be paid for a strategy that everyone finds comfortable and acceptable. Those characteristics that most participants find objectionable actually create opportunities for those willing to bear them.