If you need to resort to personal remarks to hide your ineptitude and inability to sustain a reasoned debate then you really are in trouble!
The crazy unsubstantiated claim is the 60-70%. You of course need to maintain that level of precision because your debate in support of 1:1 pivots about a win:shed, but it's unsubstantiated. That's not to mention that kind of precision is not achievable but we haven't seen anything to support your claim that you are achieving it. Without 60-70percent your concept about 1:1 crumbles.
If your complete revelation along with your argument in support of 1:1 is'a 1:1 Rwith a top win:shed is profitable' then it truly is a non issue, it's very basic mathematics.
Perhaps, but you've yet to mention that your motive.
The important part isn't so much the advantages of 1:1 as the feasibility, can it be viable. Not without a large win:shed, which as I've mentioned before puts the focus on predicting market leadership accurately more than on trading. Ignoring Sharpe form ratios, your functionality and yields are directly linked to your ability (or otherwise) to predict what the market will do next, at the very short duration seeing as you claim to be a scalper.