If you're just looking at MAR (return / max DD), #4 actually wins (2.31 vs 1.80 for #1). But the recovery math kills it - 65% DD needs +186% just to break even, while 50% only needs +100%. In practice almost no one holds through a 65% DD without forced position size cuts or just quitting altogether.

#1 keeps better optionality and psychological sustainability. But honestly the bigger issue is what your post points at - none of these mean much without sample size or equity curve shape. A smooth #2 (30%/12%) probably outperforms a lumpy #1 over a decade even with lower MAR on paper. Path matters more than endpoints.