How many of you also gamble (deliberately)?

[ShaunWhite]

The huge drifters that then go on to win/run very well in the race. The hammered favourites or steamers that run awfully in the race.

It's generally accepted that SP is efficient in a large sample. Have you got any stats that say the SP of the big movers isn't? The danger is that these are just memorable rather than statistically significant. The value probably existed before the move but if we knew that we'd all be minted.

WRT the topic of the month 'harmonic mean', is this proven to be even closer to the actual winning likelihood than SP? If deviation represents value then I assume that's the case.

[ruthlessimon]

I'll take up the challenge Shaun Gives me a good excuse to finish merging the BF promo data to my current capture sheets

I was gonna say "should be easy".. but even a simple statement such as "huge drifters that then go on to win/run very well in the race" quickly leads to a lot of complexity if we're not careful (morning WAP, Preoff WAP, SP, Big recoveries vs flat markets, race types, courses, speed of move etc)!!

[Euler]

Samples are often too broad and generic.

Is the earth round, or flat?

If you are looking from space, it is clearly round, but if you are on the American plains, it's clearly flat. It's just a matter of perspective. If you plot data from a general data set and apply general rules to it, it will produce general results. Finding an edge there is incredibly hard.

On average the each is perfectly round and flat, you are looking for some Himalayas or Rockies and selling flat by waiting for something to walk over them and eventually return to mean. You may also want to buy flat when they are walking through somewhere like death valley which is 86m below sea level.

I've run a value lay bot since 2011 but realised it results were erratic in terms of going on winning or losing runs. So I know also run a dutching bot which squashes individual variance by covering more than one selection.

On a final point, anybody who pays premium charge should also be gambling.

[napshnap]

Samples are often too broad and generic.

Is the earth round, or flat?

If you are looking from space, it is clearly round, but if you are on the American plains, it's clearly flat. It's just a matter of perspective. If you plot data from a general data set and apply general rules to it, it will produce general results. Finding an edge there is incredibly hard.

On average the each is perfectly round and flat, you are looking for some Himalayas or Rockies and selling flat by waiting for something to walk over them and eventually return to mean. You may also want to buy flat when they are walking through somewhere like death valley which is 86m below sea level.

I've run a value lay bot since 2011 but realised it results were erratic in terms of going on winning or losing runs. So I know also run a dutching bot which squashes individual variance by covering more than one selection.

On a final point, anybody who pays premium charge should also be gambling.

Do you mean traders should become gamblers to avoid PC or gamblers have a high chance being taxed with a PC? If last than it's a very controversial statement.

[Euler]

You get a long-term positive pay off for gambling if you are a PC payer, even if you just break even. But gamblers or any gambling strategy is very unlikely to pay PC.

[SeaHorseRacing]

I personally think if you dont regularly check your balance and you have a profitable strategy gambling their should be no issues.

For me my trading really was life changing when I stopped looking at my balance.. Its that mentality when you have 5 profitable days destroyed by 1.
Gambling alone I think is even harder because the losing runs can be longer, simply because its hard to obtain a higher strike rate.

I think I will eventually take up some gambling on my BF account but I have only been a profitable trader for just over a year so I dont see the need yet. One step at a time and for most I thnk we should just concentrate on being a profitable trader first.

[SeaHorseRacing]

Re: How many of you also gamble (deliberately)?

Me (sadly).

Lack of discipline and loss acceptance is the bane of my life (like so many others I'm sure!)...

CS

Spend all your focus on this, your be amazed how quickly anyone can actually achieve this. Practise not looking at your balance and set yourself some rules. See if you can one week without looking at your balance. Than try two . Than try a month.

Take of the figures on your trading ladders, this helped me alot at one stage.

[ruthlessimon]

Samples are often too broad and generic.

My slight issue with this, is there's always ways data can be refined - to absolutely extreme levels.

Basically, the data becomes so specialised/specific, that the time it takes to build a meaningful sample could be years. Moreover, the results of a totally specific system might be worse than a generic one (which has a high trade frequency - i.e. HFT)

Or perhaps, these small quantitive edges (meaningless alone), coalesce into what we think of as 'intuition'

[ShaunWhite]

Or perhaps, these small quantitive edges (meaningless alone), coalesce into what we think of as 'intuition'

+1 I've always thought the best complex pattern recognition happens in your cerebral cortex rather than Excel .

Oh no! "always thought"...i've fallen into a bias trap

[Trading96]

Anyone got any thoughts on the future of PC?

It's been about 10 years since it was introduced, I was a kid then so didn't have an account.

There are 1000's in that boat.

I have been able to mitigate it, every year more and more PC payers are leaving and being replaced by people who are able to mitigate. Surely it's unsustainable and they'll have to move to a different model. But if they increase base rate that will screw them so whats the option?

[Kafkaesque]

Anyone got any thoughts on the future of PC?

It's been about 10 years since it was introduced, I was a kid then so didn't have an account.

There are 1000's in that boat.

I have been able to mitigate it, every year more and more PC payers are leaving and being replaced by people who are able to mitigate. Surely it's unsustainable and they'll have to move to a different model. But if they increase base rate that will screw them so whats the option?

I disagree that it's unsustainable. They're trying to create something where the money keeps flowing within the system (for their own benefit, not ours, mind), and people consistently taking large chunks of money out of that money flow system is bad for their business. So they tax those people heavily. If they wanna still stick around, fine. But it's also fine, rather than unsustainable for BF, if they leave. As long as there's no serious competition for them to go to.

The closest comparison I can think of is Pokerstars, who's got nearly as much of a de facto monopoly as BF, and after Amaya bought them up, they also changed rake etc. to heavily tax those draining the money flow.

[napshnap]

Anyone got any thoughts on the future of PC?

It's been about 10 years since it was introduced, I was a kid then so didn't have an account.

There are 1000's in that boat.

I have been able to mitigate it, every year more and more PC payers are leaving and being replaced by people who are able to mitigate. Surely it's unsustainable and they'll have to move to a different model. But if they increase base rate that will screw them so whats the option?

I disagree that it's unsustainable. They're trying to create something where the money keeps flowing within the system (for their own benefit, not ours, mind), and people consistently taking large chunks of money out of that money flow system is bad for their business. So they tax those people heavily. If they wanna still stick around, fine. But it's also fine, rather than unsustainable for BF, if they leave. As long as there's no serious competition for them to go to.

The closest comparison I can think of is Pokerstars, who's got nearly as much of a de facto monopoly as BF, and after Amaya bought them up, they also changed rake etc. to heavily tax those draining the money flow.

How the hell we (traders) are draining the money flow? We support money flaw making it more attractive for average punters by suggesting maximal possible odds (by competing with each other, filling price gaps), we make their gamblestory (successful or not) longer and bf must be interested in it. Of course we (traders) take some money for our services. We are necessary evil.
If bf interested in exchange recreation (especially in light of current possibilities in usa), they should stop parasiting on traders, remove ridiculous dreamkilling 250k 60% tribute, remove their new charge for api developers, reestablish their developer forum which they bashfully and quietly slaughtered, advertise exchange much more, make google search output lead to exchange not sportbook. And more and more and more...

[stueytrader]

The huge drifters that then go on to win/run very well in the race. The hammered favourites or steamers that run awfully in the race.

It's generally accepted that SP is efficient in a large sample. Have you got any stats that say the SP of the big movers isn't? The danger is that these are just memorable rather than statistically significant. The value probably existed before the move but if we knew that we'd all be minted.

I agree about the wider sample, but we don't back or lay the wider sample, so that was my point about fundamentals. In selected cases we know it can be way inefficient. Of course how we 'select' is the issue though....

[brimson25]

Re: How many of you also gamble (deliberately)?

Me (sadly).

Lack of discipline and loss acceptance is the bane of my life (like so many others I'm sure!)...

CS

Spend all your focus on this, your be amazed how quickly anyone can actually achieve this. Practise not looking at your balance and set yourself some rules. See if you can one week without looking at your balance. Than try two . Than try a month.

Take of the figures on your trading ladders, this helped me alot at one stage.

How do you do that?

[stueytrader]

The huge drifters that then go on to win/run very well in the race. The hammered favourites or steamers that run awfully in the race.

It's generally accepted that SP is efficient in a large sample. Have you got any stats that say the SP of the big movers isn't? The danger is that these are just memorable rather than statistically significant. The value probably existed before the move but if we knew that we'd all be minted.

I agree about the wider sample, but we don't back or lay the wider sample, so that was my point about fundamentals. In selected cases we know it can be way inefficient. Of course how we 'select' is the issue though....

Just to add to this point, it's also the case that each selection is never a single static price - it will have traded at often a large range of different prices before it runs. So, that opens an even wider scope for inefficiency at points in the market.