Some further observations:
1. The Sharpe Ratio is claimed to be used more as a performance comparator rather than as a standalone risk indicator. In fact, it does not measure risk at all. But even as a standard measure across portfolios/accounts, we would be committing a logic fallacy. I elaborate after the next point.
2. The nature of using standard deviation anywhere in its calculation implies a conformity to normal distribution, which is not the case in account performance. A martingale system with consistent gains, but with no stoploss, will have a large Sharpe Ratio, even though it is exposed to complete destruction every time it trades. A profitable system like the Turtle trading system (multiple small losses, with big and infrequent large gains) will have a tiny Sharpe Ratio compared to a system with consistent but small gains.
3. Using the Sharpe Ratio to compare systems is like trying to determine which swims better, a spoon or a mountain? It is simply not a significant qualifier.
4. Okay, now we look at the mathematics, to get a Sharpe Ratio greater than 1, you would need an average of the returns to be greater than the standard deviation of the returns.
You would achieve a small standard deviation if the absolute $ returns per period is similar, resulting in a large Sharpe Ratio.
This is achievable if each trade/period yields the same $ amount regardless of the growth or loss in the balance(via organic P&L or deposit/withdrawals).
This is silly because it means the system does not increase or decrease the trade sizes in accordance with the balance of the account, i.e. zero money management, and yet it has a large Sharpe Ratio AND lower % yield.
This is illustrated by comparing 'Fixed $10 Return' and '10% growth/Period' tables. The SR for 'Fixed $10 Return' is a whopping 316.54 with net profit of 100%, while the SR for '10% growth/Period' is 3.49 while it's net profit is greater at 159%.
Comparing 'Fixed $10 Return' and 'Fixed $1 Return', they both have the same Sharpe Ratio, when the former has 10 times more profit.
Comparing '10% growth/Period' and '1% growth/Period', the former has 15.9 times more profit but the SR is 3.49, while the latter has a higher SR at 33.20.
Comparing 'Irregular Return' and the rest, it has the second smallest SR 0.60, but the highest net profit at 938%.
Comparing 'Turtle-like Return and '1% growth/Period', the former's SR 0.15 is but a fraction of the latter's SR 316.54, but it has 5.1 times the profit.
5. Also, the longer an account is open, the lower the Sharpe Ratio will go simply because the probability of different returns for each period increases.
All said, why is a statistical measure for particle physics being used to measure fund performance? It's so absolutely ridiculous.