Is that "Profitable" true Gamblers you mean....Euler wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:43 amI've had the actual numbers of PC payers leaked to me. It's actually a really small number because to fall into its clutches you need to hit many qualifying targets and all that is offset against commissions generated anyhow. So even if you are long-term profitable you may not pay the charge.
The situation is confused by lots of high profile traders that claim to pay higher rate PC, but that I know for a fact they don't. It's just another piece of publicity to give the impression they do this full time. There are probably plenty on lower rates as that hurdle is easy to cross. But I doubt many true gamblers pay it at all.
Trader or Gambler?
Can you post them on the forum please.
How do you know that for a fact?
If you are run a corner shop; are you gambling?
What if your product starts going out of date?
What if people stop shopping at your store?
...You can expect to take profits on some products and losses on others.
There is an average, underlying expectancy (EV) to your profits and losses -- a summation of every aspect of your business.
The Law of Large Numbers proves you'll get closer and closer to that expectancy the more business you take.
It's a dynamic process as the variables change but if you're constantly making good purchasing decisions and serving customers frequently you'll end up +£. In the same way, if you tend to over-purchase stock and are renting in a particularly pricey area, you can expect to lose money consistently. (This is why you won't find a fish & chips takeaway next to a Gucci store)
As you're risking capital and your income depends upon some level of randomness/chance (who buys what and how often), I'd argue that by opening up a corner shop, you are by definition gambling with the invested money.
In the same way, trading can be defined as gambling. Results can be predicted to a high degree of accuracy (think casino takings), making the endavour a relatively safe form of gambling, as opposed to reckless. It is of my opinion that those "strong majority of traders lose" phrases are generally true due to how our brains are wired and conditioned to make decisions. You can expect a phrase like "90% of gamblers lose money" to ring true, too. The term "gambling" has negative connotations to it for that reason -- people have for decades associated gambling with losing money and other negative situations/emotions without realising it and the result is the only form of gambling they understand is "reckless" or "compulsive" gambling.
The second takeaway in this post is this: if you approach things sensibly, you can determine your expectancy, define if it's positive/negative, and decide whether or not to continue doing business. Just as you can estimate your takings for a month or know roughly how many customers will come through the door (and with higher accuracy the longer you've been open), so too can you with your trading / gambling.
Regardless of what you tell others, it may help to think of yourself as a gambler. In this way, you accept that you are risking something and you exploit the fact your brain knows gambling is not a "guaranteed" form of income and you may think twice before hammering Back/Lay.
HB10 "Nice to meet you. What do you do??"
eightbo "Hi. I'm a profit creator."
HB10 "Oh wow that's so cool!"
eightbo "I know."
What if your product starts going out of date?
What if people stop shopping at your store?
...You can expect to take profits on some products and losses on others.
There is an average, underlying expectancy (EV) to your profits and losses -- a summation of every aspect of your business.
The Law of Large Numbers proves you'll get closer and closer to that expectancy the more business you take.
It's a dynamic process as the variables change but if you're constantly making good purchasing decisions and serving customers frequently you'll end up +£. In the same way, if you tend to over-purchase stock and are renting in a particularly pricey area, you can expect to lose money consistently. (This is why you won't find a fish & chips takeaway next to a Gucci store)
As you're risking capital and your income depends upon some level of randomness/chance (who buys what and how often), I'd argue that by opening up a corner shop, you are by definition gambling with the invested money.
In the same way, trading can be defined as gambling. Results can be predicted to a high degree of accuracy (think casino takings), making the endavour a relatively safe form of gambling, as opposed to reckless. It is of my opinion that those "strong majority of traders lose" phrases are generally true due to how our brains are wired and conditioned to make decisions. You can expect a phrase like "90% of gamblers lose money" to ring true, too. The term "gambling" has negative connotations to it for that reason -- people have for decades associated gambling with losing money and other negative situations/emotions without realising it and the result is the only form of gambling they understand is "reckless" or "compulsive" gambling.
The second takeaway in this post is this: if you approach things sensibly, you can determine your expectancy, define if it's positive/negative, and decide whether or not to continue doing business. Just as you can estimate your takings for a month or know roughly how many customers will come through the door (and with higher accuracy the longer you've been open), so too can you with your trading / gambling.
Regardless of what you tell others, it may help to think of yourself as a gambler. In this way, you accept that you are risking something and you exploit the fact your brain knows gambling is not a "guaranteed" form of income and you may think twice before hammering Back/Lay.
HB10 "Nice to meet you. What do you do??"
eightbo "Hi. I'm a profit creator."
HB10 "Oh wow that's so cool!"
eightbo "I know."
-
Kafkaesque
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:20 am
Top, top, top post sireightbo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:47 amIf you are run a corner shop; are you gambling?
What if your product starts going out of date?
What if people stop shopping at your store?
...You can expect to take profits on some products and losses on others.
There is an average, underlying expectancy (EV) to your profits and losses -- a summation of every aspect of your business.
The Law of Large Numbers proves you'll get closer and closer to that expectancy the more business you take.
It's a dynamic process as the variables change but if you're constantly making good purchasing decisions and serving customers frequently you'll end up +£. In the same way, if you tend to over-purchase stock and are renting in a particularly pricey area, you can expect to lose money consistently. (This is why you won't find a fish & chips takeaway next to a Gucci store)
As you're risking capital and your income depends upon some level of randomness/chance (who buys what and how often), I'd argue that by opening up a corner shop, you are by definition gambling with the invested money.
In the same way, trading can be defined as gambling. Results can be predicted to a high degree of accuracy (think casino takings), making the endavour a relatively safe form of gambling, as opposed to reckless. It is of my opinion that those "strong majority of traders lose" phrases are generally true due to how our brains are wired and conditioned to make decisions. You can expect a phrase like "90% of gamblers lose money" to ring true, too. The term "gambling" has negative connotations to it for that reason -- people have for decades associated gambling with losing money and other negative situations/emotions without realising it and the result is the only form of gambling they understand is "reckless" or "compulsive" gambling.
The second takeaway in this post is this: if you approach things sensibly, you can determine your expectancy, define if it's positive/negative, and decide whether or not to continue doing business. Just as you can estimate your takings for a month or know roughly how many customers will come through the door (and with higher accuracy the longer you've been open), so too can you with your trading / gambling.
Regardless of what you tell others, it may help to think of yourself as a gambler. In this way, you accept that you are risking something and you exploit the fact your brain knows gambling is not a "guaranteed" form of income and you may think twice before hammering Back/Lay.
HB10 "Nice to meet you. What do you do??"
eightbo "Hi. I'm a profit creator."
HB10 "Oh wow that's so cool!"
eightbo "I know."
Only thing making me go hmmm is this bit:
"Results can be predicted to a high degree of accuracy"
Which may be true, but should be qualified with "after a lot of observation as well as trial and error" or something similar. That would perhaps seem obvious and understood in the context to some, but based on how some newbies act and write on here, by no means all.
-
PolicemanPrawn
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:01 am
- Location: Extremistan
Would it be at all possible to inform me of the number privately? I would be fascinated to know. I suspect it is considerably lower than the "less than 0.5%" figure that Betfair gives.Euler wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:43 amI've had the actual numbers of PC payers leaked to me. It's actually a really small number because to fall into its clutches you need to hit many qualifying targets and all that is offset against commissions generated anyhow. So even if you are long-term profitable you may not pay the charge.
The situation is confused by lots of high profile traders that claim to pay higher rate PC, but that I know for a fact they don't. It's just another piece of publicity to give the impression they do this full time. There are probably plenty on lower rates as that hurdle is easy to cross. But I doubt many true gamblers pay it at all.
The timescale is probably one of the most important defining factors. If we all bet an evens shot in the next ten minutes the rate of long-term winners will be 50%, but it will decline with time and with frictional costs applied to the bets.Over a long enough period, like 10+ years, my guess would be that 5% is generous. Very much so, and that the true number is a lot closer to 1%.
I can't answer for Euler but IMO I think the keywords in his original sentence were 'leaked' and 'small'
So I don't think the actual figure is really important, just that the number claiming to be and the numbers that are don't match up so its just something to be aware of.
So I don't think the actual figure is really important, just that the number claiming to be and the numbers that are don't match up so its just something to be aware of.
-
ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
Look out Peter. 2nd question in 4 yrs and DI Prawn is trying to get you to confirm you know a number that could get your account manager fired if it tallies with the true figure.PolicemanPrawn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:59 pmWould it be at all possible to inform me of the number privately?
Btw, isn't the first rule of receiving inside info that you don't give any clues where you got it from. 'Told to me' would have been a wiser choice than 'Leaked to me'. Giving your info provenance like that is a little indiscrete as 'leak' means it's an inside job?
A leak doesn't have to be deliberate, just careless.
I've long been fascinated not only by the structure and nature of the trading markets but also it's participants. I'll often put large orders into a market just to see how much in nibbled away and how often and that can give you lots of clues as to the other side of the market and what's going on. I've been slowly filling in the pieces of the puzzle for years in terms of what I expected to see and what I observe. What it taught me is that Kahneman and Tversky's work permeates everything. It's quite amazing to see.
I'm thinking of doing some face to face mini events, if you catch me at those I'll be able to talk about stuff I can't say in public. There is obviously information that can be public and stuff that can't.
One funny example I can give you is that somebody contacted me some time ago about their trading and discussed with me all their account information. They were miles short of paying higher rate PC but I see them moaning about it all the time, despite the fact they will probably never quality to pay higher rate PC, they have simply never earned enough. To them it's not a weekly stab in the stomach from Betfair, it's a marketing message. I'd be willing to wager it's the same for a very large number of people who claim to be caught in it's grasp.
I've long been fascinated not only by the structure and nature of the trading markets but also it's participants. I'll often put large orders into a market just to see how much in nibbled away and how often and that can give you lots of clues as to the other side of the market and what's going on. I've been slowly filling in the pieces of the puzzle for years in terms of what I expected to see and what I observe. What it taught me is that Kahneman and Tversky's work permeates everything. It's quite amazing to see.
I'm thinking of doing some face to face mini events, if you catch me at those I'll be able to talk about stuff I can't say in public. There is obviously information that can be public and stuff that can't.
One funny example I can give you is that somebody contacted me some time ago about their trading and discussed with me all their account information. They were miles short of paying higher rate PC but I see them moaning about it all the time, despite the fact they will probably never quality to pay higher rate PC, they have simply never earned enough. To them it's not a weekly stab in the stomach from Betfair, it's a marketing message. I'd be willing to wager it's the same for a very large number of people who claim to be caught in it's grasp.
-
spreadbetting
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
Surely it would have been easier just to say a figure you guesstimate to be true rather than skirting round the houses. If we believe Betfair's figures of 4 million accounts and 0.1%/0.5% that'd put it at 4,000 accounts high rate and 20,000 PC payers, which seem low to me.
-
ruthlessimon
- Posts: 2094
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm
Trading is bloody difficult - those figs don't surprise me in the slightestspreadbetting wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:09 pmthat'd put it at 4,000 accounts high rate and 20,000 PC payers, which seem low to me.