The label on every trade
Verdict: one losing setup can hide inside a profitable overall result. In Lizard, the group labelled B1 lost 1,163.62 USD while the complete run still ended 183.99 USD ahead.
| Lizard label | Trades | Net result | Win rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | 8,944 | -1,163.62 USD | 21.7% |
| A2 | 2,451 | 401.06 USD | 39.3% |
| B3 | 605 | 161.10 USD | 39.8% |
The overall curve hides the split
Lizard's trade record contains six labels across 21,524 trades. Five groups earned 1,347.61 USD between them, enough to offset B1 and leave the full run with a small gain. The final balance alone makes the weak component easy to miss.
B1 was also the largest group. It took 8,944 trades, won 21.7% of them and lost 1,163.62 USD. A2 used 2,451 trades and earned 401.06 USD.
What the label can tell you
The label comes from the strategy's own trade comments. Grouping results by that text can show whether several entry ideas support the outcome or whether one component consistently subtracts from it.
A label is useful evidence, but it is not proof that each group is an independent strategy. The same mechanism can carry different names, and different mechanisms can share one name.
Read the parts before the total
Look for a group that loses despite an overall gain, then compare its trade count and win rate with the profitable groups. That turns a smooth balance curve into a practical question: is the weakest component optional, or is it built into every run?
Open the Lizard audit for all six groups and the complete measured result.
The label split, the drawdown decomposition and the cost lines are in every audit we publish (in full on free audits, in the full audit on paid ones). Your own tester report? The browser check is free.