Should you stop playing chess if your losses are more than your wins?

Hello! I want to ask you if I should stop playing chess completely because my losses are more than 50%  ?
I am not losing to some better players, but to players my level. I have 8 games lost more than my wins in rapid chess.
I am not new to the game, I play for years, but I never managed to become at least a 2000. My highest ever is 1500 here and 1800 something on lichess. 

For example what I'm talking about now is my 90 rapid games on lichess 40 of which are wins, 48 are losses and 2 are draws.

That makes me feel... bad because I know that I wont be able to win 8 games to make it 50% and not to even think about making it more than 50%

So my question is, if in general you lose much more than you win, is there any point to keep playing at all?

Yeah! You could play to get better, or just to have fun.

With losses come great learning experience.

Imagine a newbie losing his first game and saying that he has more losses than wins. He can't possibly give up chess after that game, right?

You have to be physically and mentally prepared if you want to win. But if you want to play a game just to have fun, then playing every time is okay.

Let's take a closer look at what you are saying.

Suppose there are a hundred million chess players on Earth. They pair off and play chess. Every decisive game has a winner and a loser. You will ALWAYS have just as many people losing more than 50% as you have people winning more than 50%... because EVERY win is a loss for the other player.

So, according to you, half of the players on Earth should quit the game. Now there are only fifty million players on Earth. Again, they pair off and play chess. After several games, half of them end up with winning records. Half of them end up with more losses than wins, and THEY quit the game.

Now there are only 25 million players on Earth... continue this process through another twenty-odd iterations, and you are left with only ONE chess player remaining on the entire planet.

... and since he's the ONLY chess player on the planet, he can't find an opponent. So he has to quit the game. Chess becomes as extinct as the dinosaurs.

Because there's no point in playing unless you have a winning record.

@1
"if I should stop playing chess completely because my losses are more than 50%  ?"
++ No. If you lose more than 50% it means you play opponents stronger than you.

"I am not losing to some better players" ++ Yes, you are losing to some better players: because they win against you, they are better than you.

Just FYI, you have more wins (462) than losses (421).

If you are tilted because you lose more games you have to take a break. Play again later if you have rested already.

i don't think that you should stop playing chess because for me win or lose are a normal things in a game

True.

I’m not sure it’s easy or even possible to improve continuously playing 3 minutes games like you do. Also, in the games chess.com shows of yours, there are no draws.  I wonder if you might start playing for draws in a lost position.?

I study for hours a day and am still rubbish. It strikes me that there has to be a lot of studying for modest gains.

But don’t give up. Just think what would have happened if Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel had have given up. ;o)

Why do you play? To win? Or because you like to play?

First, you should see if there is something simple you are overlooking in your games, and why you are losing. Are you always ignoring what the opponent is doing? (that was one of my problems). Are you moving too quickly? Are you always trying to attack? Are you pushing pawns too much and giving him knight outposts? So you should really look at that. But if you analyze your games and feel that you've just hit a "plateau", even after doing everything you can think of to improve your game, you should throw in the towel, unless you just like playing chess, win or lose, and are okay to stay at your rating forever.

That is the best question. When I first started playing chess, it was so novel that I was used to losing. I played because I liked it. So I naturally improved, like others, after avoiding gross blunders. But after a while, I reached a plateau. I realized that I wanted to IMPROVE, not just "play chess". I would get into huge winning streaks followed by huge losing streaks, and end up with the exact same rating average. I could not figure out exactly what I was doing wrong overall, although I could spot my errors in any particular game. But there was never really a pattern, and I realized that I played to improve my game, my rating, and grow deeper in understanding chess. But because I "plateaued", I knew I was never going to get there, and I simply did not want to sacrifice more to reach that 2000, much less 2200.

"Because there's no point in playing unless you have a winning record." True Words

I was lying to myself. I realize when I play rapid or slower, classical chess, my moves are better, even against good opponents. So there is hope. I'm also reading some strategy books (My System, by Nimzovich) and it's helping me look at the game in a new way. Also, I've reinvested in a Diamond membership, which makes it less daunting to analyze my painful losses. Now, when I lose, instead of avoiding going over the painful loss, I let the engine review it. Not as good as self-analysis first, but at least it's analysis. Computer analysis is better than no analysis. So I think I'm improving, and I realize the learning curve is steep, so even after I learn and apply new concepts, I will have some painful losses. I think for me, I love chess too much to "give it up" and just hope to become the best I can be, in this lifetime, given my other constraints.