His losing strategy is so good you can probably do the exact opposite and make money? That's what i think.LinusP wrote:Why would you not want to share this Peter?Euler wrote:Curiously, I did eventually find a consistently losing strategy. But I'm not in a position to share it unfortunately.
Losing strategies wanted
I think Peter's motivation was merely to demonstrate how difficult it is to lose money.
People often say things like 'the market is rigged against me, when I do x I lose money because the market manipulators cause to to take a red'. Peter is basically saying, 'OK, give me your criteria, and I'll test whether you're right using a large sample of data'.
Jeff
People often say things like 'the market is rigged against me, when I do x I lose money because the market manipulators cause to to take a red'. Peter is basically saying, 'OK, give me your criteria, and I'll test whether you're right using a large sample of data'.
Jeff
Agree, Peter just trys to push people in the right direction.Ferru123 wrote:I think Peter's motivation was merely to demonstrate how difficult it is to lose money.
People often say things like 'the market is rigged against me, when I do x I lose money because the market manipulators cause to to take a red'. Peter is basically saying, 'OK, give me your criteria, and I'll test whether you're right using a large sample of data'.
Jeff
I don't think there is such a thing as a winning or loosing strategy! You have to think in terms of approaches that have tendancy towards results that are positive or negative. The aim would be to get more of positive results and less of negative results.
There is no silver bullet, and if it was there, then more than few would've discovered it which would make it redundant.
I've been absent from trading for about 10 months but have developed successful bot recently that does the work for me. But it is not based on strategy. I don't particularly like the word STRATEGY. It's a bit like emperor's clothing.
I would rather concentrate on improving bit by bit everyday by adding things that have more probability of working and subtrating that have tendancy of loosing. Eventually you will get to a point where return becomes predictable.
But I would urge you to stop using the word STRATEGY.
There is no silver bullet, and if it was there, then more than few would've discovered it which would make it redundant.
I've been absent from trading for about 10 months but have developed successful bot recently that does the work for me. But it is not based on strategy. I don't particularly like the word STRATEGY. It's a bit like emperor's clothing.
I would rather concentrate on improving bit by bit everyday by adding things that have more probability of working and subtrating that have tendancy of loosing. Eventually you will get to a point where return becomes predictable.
But I would urge you to stop using the word STRATEGY.
Sorry, but that sounds like an example of that thing that you've forbidden us from referring to by name...Photon wrote: I would rather concentrate on improving bit by bit everyday by adding things that have more probability of working and subtrating that have tendancy of loosing. Eventually you will get to a point where return becomes predictable.
But I would urge you to stop using the word STRATEGY.
A rose by any other name is still a rose, ditto a str...
It wasFerru123 wrote:I think Peter's motivation was merely to demonstrate how difficult it is to lose money.
People often say things like 'the market is rigged against me, when I do x I lose money because the market manipulators cause to to take a red'. Peter is basically saying, 'OK, give me your criteria, and I'll test whether you're right using a large sample of data'.
Jeff
That true, but it also does it by using an exploit. So I don't think it's sensible to expose that. I wont be using it.marko236 wrote:His losing strategy is so good you can probably do the exact opposite and make money? That's what i think.
Would it be wrong for us to try and work out the exploit? I have an idea of what it is and i could post it in a way that doesn't show exactly how it's done, my idea could be way wrong thou.Euler wrote:That true, but it also does it by using an exploit. So I don't think it's sensible to expose that. I wont be using it.marko236 wrote:His losing strategy is so good you can probably do the exact opposite and make money? That's what i think.
-
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:28 am
I don't have stats on this but Im certain this strategy would lose money.
Choose any horse at any time pre off, using 10 pound stakes but a single offer into the market at the best reverse price either side of the book. Don't put any other orders into the market that could influence the first position. Wait to be matched. Then offer the offset, if the price moves away from the first order sell out immediately for a 1 tick loss. If the offset is matched repeat. I don't have stats but I'm quite sure this will lose money regular?
Choose any horse at any time pre off, using 10 pound stakes but a single offer into the market at the best reverse price either side of the book. Don't put any other orders into the market that could influence the first position. Wait to be matched. Then offer the offset, if the price moves away from the first order sell out immediately for a 1 tick loss. If the offset is matched repeat. I don't have stats but I'm quite sure this will lose money regular?
-
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:28 am
Try it on a horse about 10s. Your thinking that as a result of a race it would break even over time. Put a 10 pound back or lay into the market and do nothing else other than sell out when the next move happens either against you or with you for 1 tick. You may be surprised how random, random really is.