In an ideal world... you should only ever open a trade if you believe there is positive expected value in that transaction - therefore you should only ever close a trade if you believe the same. But it's not an ideal world and some people will baulk at the risk of a large 'red' and trade out even though it's negative expected value in the long run.
People will make trades when there is negative expected value for a variety of reasons. Gambling, limited banks, security etc. eg we all insure our houses and cars (and sometimes much more) despite the fact the ROI of insurance averages out at about 50%.
Let a failed trade go in play
-
ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
In any job where you're buying and selling there's going to situations you cut your losses. So you let something go for a small loss rather than putting it on the shelf hoping to get a profit when it'll probably end up worth nothing.
People freak themselves out when 'sports trading" gets mentioned when they just need to stick to how any other sort of trading is done. You buy you sell, some you get right some you don't. Spend your time getting better rather than looking for tricks to try and cover up not being very good, because there aren't any.
Sounds harsh but that's how it Is.
People freak themselves out when 'sports trading" gets mentioned when they just need to stick to how any other sort of trading is done. You buy you sell, some you get right some you don't. Spend your time getting better rather than looking for tricks to try and cover up not being very good, because there aren't any.
Sounds harsh but that's how it Is.
That's very hopeful thinking. You're ignoring the heavy losses when you can't get matched in running and lose your full trade stake or liability.Stavros wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 7:40 amI read a lot of advice that if you have a trade which goes the wrong way, cash out a loss before the race starts.
I personally do not agree with this and would be interested to know what others think.
I personally believe that if say you’ve made a £100 trade hoping to see the odds come in but the odds go against you sharpish, fair enough if you can cash out for a minimal loss, then do so but if you’re facing a -£20 or higher loss I believe you should let the trade run as a bet and not lay off at any price.
If you always cash in a failed trade for 15% or more losses, those losses are going to rack up and always be a negative sum long term. If you let the trade run as a bet I believe you’ll be far closer to breaking even on the failed trades long term. I’ve followed thousands of races and seen so many horses who’s odds come in sharply fail to win and lots of horses who’s odds drift out massively win.
If you can get your failed trades to end up as not being a loss and then cash in on all your successful trades , your long term profits are going to improve significantly.
What are other people’s thoughts on this?
At any point in time, the money you've made from a trade is irrelevant. Your decision should be based on what you can make or lose and the likelihood of either from that point onwards. There's nothing wrong with letting trades go in play if it's preplanned, if you're punting, have an idea of what price the horse is worth, likely to run during the race, etc. The thing most people turn their noses up at is when a trader has no intention of letting the trade go in play until he sees a red and lets loss-adversity get the better of him.
Everything is relative. A heavy loss to one trader is peanuts to another.Stavros wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:53 amAnbell, there is no line at £20. I was just giving an example of a trade that will take a significant hit if you cash in. I don’t think anyone minds taking a hit for a few pounds. There has to be a point where you can’t cash in. You surely wouldn’t cash in a loss of £50.
every strategy has a market.
your approach would make sense if an over emotional market is due for correction or if a Bot/bomber goes rogue against your position.(Emotional Anomalies )
-you are also likely to catch crazy fluctuations on MAIDENS with no form-lines. and are all trading at very close low prices.
your edge in this case is not a pre-planned , data driven approach ... its Emotional intelligence , thats not accounted for while backtesting.
your approach would make sense if an over emotional market is due for correction or if a Bot/bomber goes rogue against your position.(Emotional Anomalies )
-you are also likely to catch crazy fluctuations on MAIDENS with no form-lines. and are all trading at very close low prices.
your edge in this case is not a pre-planned , data driven approach ... its Emotional intelligence , thats not accounted for while backtesting.
-
ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
That's true, a heavy loss is the max you planned to lose for the stake you're using whoever you are. 5% of £2 'feels' just like 5% of £2000. The only time people go in-running unplanned is when they've created a situation they didn't plan for, such as averaging 2% gains then looking at a 20%.loss.
I can say that because I still remember back in 06 I was staking £500 hoping to win or lose about 20 quid a race and average say +£5 20 times a day. I layed a mid ranking runner, refused to accept I'd got it wrong and found myself looking at a £100 loss (x5 my plan), I went in-running..... It started like a rocket and won by a country mile, and I managed to lose 7 grand.
Didn't log in again until 2016.Thanks for the replies. I’m not here saying I’m right, I’m simply putting it out there that there may be a different approach to improve long term profits.
I can see no one agrees with me about this approach and I respect that.
When I have time maybe I’ll calculate the profit/loss if I had bet 1 unit on the Betfair starting price of the favourite over the 1200 races I’ve recorded to see how accurate the Betfair starting price is in valuing the odds of the favourite.
With roulette we know the true odds of an outcome winning. Football is a little harder but I think we can pretty much accurately know the correct odds of a team winning. But horses are a lot more difficult as there are far more opponents and more factors. If you back a horse at 2.20 to win, 4 mins before race schedule start time but the odds at race start is 2.60, have we really got a 7% less chance of winning? It’s the same horse, the same race. Yes the odds imply we have a 7% less chance but how do most punters know the true odds, most of the money in the market is trader money like you or I, and most traders aren’t putting money in because we believe the horse is more likely to win, we are simply looking at the market. The odds may have drifted because there is a big gamble on a horse that has come in from 10/1 to 6/1.
Who is to say the odds at -4 mins before race schedule start time are not more accurate before traders money starts driving the market? Maybe when I have time I’ll calculate the profit/loss on the fav at -4 mins before race schedule start time to see how it compares.
I want to maximise my profits, I will always keep exploring different strategies to do that.
One final point, most of my trades are profitable, studying this is not due to being a not good trader, it’s simply looking to improve.
I can see no one agrees with me about this approach and I respect that.
When I have time maybe I’ll calculate the profit/loss if I had bet 1 unit on the Betfair starting price of the favourite over the 1200 races I’ve recorded to see how accurate the Betfair starting price is in valuing the odds of the favourite.
With roulette we know the true odds of an outcome winning. Football is a little harder but I think we can pretty much accurately know the correct odds of a team winning. But horses are a lot more difficult as there are far more opponents and more factors. If you back a horse at 2.20 to win, 4 mins before race schedule start time but the odds at race start is 2.60, have we really got a 7% less chance of winning? It’s the same horse, the same race. Yes the odds imply we have a 7% less chance but how do most punters know the true odds, most of the money in the market is trader money like you or I, and most traders aren’t putting money in because we believe the horse is more likely to win, we are simply looking at the market. The odds may have drifted because there is a big gamble on a horse that has come in from 10/1 to 6/1.
Who is to say the odds at -4 mins before race schedule start time are not more accurate before traders money starts driving the market? Maybe when I have time I’ll calculate the profit/loss on the fav at -4 mins before race schedule start time to see how it compares.
I want to maximise my profits, I will always keep exploring different strategies to do that.
One final point, most of my trades are profitable, studying this is not due to being a not good trader, it’s simply looking to improve.
-
ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
You'll find a bias one way or the other in that 1,200 favs because that's only about 6 weeks racing. The profitability of bsp swings over much longer periods, sometimes 6 or more months.
BSP is known to not show any particular bias that's profitable after commission when run over years of data. neither does any other point in time. The markets can be assumed to be efficient at scale but obviously inefficent at market level.
Generally the closer to the off the more information is known, particularly the condition and temperment of the horse when it's going down or loading/lining up.
That bit about 'traders' driving the market seems to imply it's uninformed money, that might be true of people hedging their positions but 'traders' are also the guys with terrabytes of data, sophisticated price modelling systems and very deep pockets, it's no coincidence that bsp is pretty good.