Performance metrics - qualitative evaluation

Sharpe
at least 36 months of data

Profit Factor
greater than 2
Examining the 2:1 profit/loss requirement, you get the sense that strategies that feature a mountain of small bites are much more succeptible to changes in the market.
For instance, if you have a strategy that states "90% of the time, with these conditions, it will reach 5 ticks before it reaches 25 ticks against."
In theory, with commission and burden, at a 5/25 (or 1/5 PL ratio), you'd need to win about 6/7 or 86% of the time.
When looking at this closer, if you've observed a 90% win rate and you're averaging a certain yield/time, it only takes a couple of losers in a row to REALLY kick you in the crotch. Essentially, you have to drop from 90% to 86% and now you're under water. Not only that, it only takes 2 or 3 consecutive losers to put you in the hospital.
Conversely, a strategy that features a 2:1 PL ratio, and has a 50% win rate, it takes several losers in a row to create a knockout punch, which usually gives the trader enough time to pause, adjust, etc.

RINA
"good" RINA index is one over 100 and an acceptible ratio is between 30-100 and anything less than 30 (even negative) is not so good.

The issue names no files, tests, or entry points. First clarify where Sharpe, Profit Factor, and RINA should be calculated and what output qualifies as done; the stated thresholds and 36-month data requirement are the available evaluation criteria.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.