Can you make a decent wage on 1 good trade per day?

[elecotop]

I've looked back on my trades and think a single good opportunity per day can return a healthy profit if using the right stakes to do so.

What are your thoughts thinking more pre-race trading...

[Kai]

In theory, yes. But it doesn't make much sense to limit yourself to just 1 big trade per day, because you obviously can't control the number of good opportunities that the markets will randomly generate on a daily basis. If you want more quality and less quantity in your trading results then instead you can try to patiently wait for your perfect setup and when it comes along you try to execute as best as you can. Going only for the most obvious trades that you can comfortably read should drastically improve your hitrate. As you get better at reading different scenarios and you get more confident you can slowly expand on that.

[spreadbetting]

I've looked back on my trades and think a single good opportunity per day can return a healthy profit if using the right stakes to do so.

What are your thoughts thinking more pre-race trading...

Like Kai says, it's hard to predict when that single good opportunity will arise or if you'll get more than one, or even none, in a day. I find trading very much a waiting game looking for the right opportunity but you may as well pick up the scraps whilst you're waiting.

If you're able to identify when that ideal trade will occur in advance then it's obviously possible to get a healthy return in the long run as long as you can cope with the inevitable run of losses.

[eightbo]

I see you are making lots of posts to accelerate your learning which is great. Seek to vigorously understand what pieces make the puzzle so that all future tweaks to your trading behaviour are of the highest quality and subsequently have more impact.

As with most things trading, this question doesn't prompt a yes/no answer.

Here's a few variables which would affect the outcome:
- your ability to identify great setups when they occur
- your ability to execute on those setups over time
- time spent at screen
- whatever "a decent wage" means to you
- whether or not there is enough liquidity in your particular market to accommodate the size required to meet that decent wage
- whether or not you are able to adapt with the ever-changing markets over time (if you're a 1-trade wonder and the edge dies, there goes your salary)

To build further on that, I can tell you that for my own trading my results that if I spend 10 hours trading 100 markets, my results will be worse on average than 10 hours trading 50 markets because I end up forcing things (taking trades with reduced expectancy).
10 hours trading 1 market, however, is worse than my 50 markets because I'd be forcing myself to miss the smaller trades which still have +ve expectancy (pick up the scraps as spreadbetting said).

The numbers will be unique for everyone but think bell curve — undertrading (missing opportunities) on the left, overtrading (taking low expectancy trades) on the right.

It is your responsibility to find the sweet spot for your own trading by experimenting with the extremes.

[stueytrader]

Interesting post.

I think the idea of going in 'very large' just on the best opportunities is an interesting idea. I don't do that personally (as I suspect most don't on here), but wouldn't rule out the idea.

Need to ponder it, to be honest, before I could give an answer. My first thought would be it sounds like 'overstaking', a horrible thought, but may be different if deliberate....

[iambic_pentameter]

From a pre off racing trade perspective, if you get a decent sized swing have a reasonably sized stake, then yes, it probably is.

The trick is to know what markets will likely lend themselves to swing conditions and having a firm exit in place before you enter i.e.

There is no point in taking a 25 tick move on one market if you've lost 25 ticks on the previous 3 markets.

Iambic

[eightbo]

Interesting post.

I think the idea of going in 'very large' just on the best opportunities is an interesting idea. I don't do that personally (as I suspect most don't on here), but wouldn't rule out the idea.

Need to ponder it, to be honest, before I could give an answer. My first thought would be it sounds like 'overstaking', a horrible thought, but may be different if deliberate....

If your total funds available for trading is big enough to withstand the drawdown it's perfectly reasonable to wait patiently for a setup with highly positive expectancy and hit it very hard when it arrives.

If a decent wage is £50,000. That's £136.99 per trade at 1 trade a day after deductions. As that accounts for losses your avg win will be higher, how much so depends on how small you can keep your losses.

Easy to make a few hundred quid in one trade.
e.g. pre-match footie → lay £5k at 3.10 → back at 3.25 = +£219.23 after 5% commission

Perhaps you pick a certain league as your niche. Cherry pick the games...
Perfectly doable.

If you can put through more than £5k without additional slippage then that number will increase without reducing the probability of the trade much.

[stueytrader]

I guess (as eightbo suggests) the advantage is selectivity.

People who churn across 100s of markets and selections can't afford to be so picky and will therefore face more poor selections across time.

However selectivity seems double-edged to me. It means a smaller sample over which to prove profitable, and I think would therefore bring in potentially higher variance in results?

[ruthlessimon]

However selectivity seems double-edged to me. It means a smaller sample over which to prove profitable, and I think would therefore bring in potentially higher variance in results?

A manual trader trading 500 strategies, how do we measure this trader?

1. "The person"
2. Strategy 1
3. Streatgy 2
4. Strategy 3....

Therefore, I'd argue, it actually lowers the variance

I don't understand why someone would just stop after discovering something minor - because from what I've seen, sometimes it'll blatantly be connected to something else.

Therefore, requiring a "new strategy" in order to exploit both opportunities.

If we try & capture both opportunities under the same umbrella, it simply doesn't work (blunts the edge)

[Gauss]

with the right market along with the correct staking I would say it’s possible with 2 or 3 trades a week

[Derek27]

I've looked back on my trades and think a single good opportunity per day can return a healthy profit if using the right stakes to do so.

What are your thoughts thinking more pre-race trading...

If you trade 20 markets a day your best market could well return a wage, in fact, sometimes, it might even be more profitable then the 20 markets in total. The problem is..... you won't know, and there is no way of knowing what your best market is until the end of the day!

[brimson25]

I have thought about this a lot. I keep returning in my mind to an old saying about eggs and baskets.

But - this is probably because I have a need to feel like I'm doing something - so i would prefer to be working, trading, doing more. (And preparation doesn't quite feel the same)

I acknowledge that this feeling is both irrational and unhelpful, but I bet I'm not alone.

The consequence of this is if I could trade 100 markets and make £100 or 1 and make £100, I'd probably feel easier in my mind with the first option. Daft, obviously!

[stueytrader]

However selectivity seems double-edged to me. It means a smaller sample over which to prove profitable, and I think would therefore bring in potentially higher variance in results?

A manual trader trading 500 strategies, how do we measure this trader?

1. "The person"
2. Strategy 1
3. Streatgy 2
4. Strategy 3....

Therefore, I'd argue, it actually lowers the variance

I don't understand why someone would just stop after discovering something minor - because from what I've seen, sometimes it'll blatantly be connected to something else.

Therefore, requiring a "new strategy" in order to exploit both opportunities.

If we try & capture both opportunities under the same umbrella, it simply doesn't work (blunts the edge)

I think I partly get what you mean - that it's possible to see traders using many strategies (and therefore selections) in smaller packets of selective strategies.

But, I think what the OP was meaning was still only using a very small total number of selections.

The original question reminds me of my thinking and discussions many years ago when purely punting - is it better to try to find many 'value' selections (and average a profit long run), or to sit and wait for only those 'golden' opportunities and then pounce big time with staking.

Problem was back then (and maybe still now) it seems tricky to know exactly which are those 'golden' selections (as I think Derek pointed out similar above). They only become apparent after the race is run often, and those that seemed like the perfect setups often fail to actually deliver, with your massive stake riding on them!

[ShaunWhite]

The answer to your question (and to paraphrase the wise words above) is that it depends on:
1. how good you are at spotting an opportunity,
2. how much money you can turn over on that opportunity, and
3. are your pockets deep enough to cope with your strike rate(ie #1).

It's pretty much the same 3 things as all win/lose jobs, like buying and selling used cars. How sweet are your cherries and how sour are your lemons?

[stueytrader]

with the right market along with the correct staking I would say it’s possible with 2 or 3 trades a week

This was a neglected reply on this post. Interested that you think it could be from such a small subset. Not sure I could imagine a decent wage from such a small amount of trades - do you mean some element of 'betting' within that?