Book% staking method
Book % by servant context
Any chance we could get this added as a staking command.
The reason for this is, I have a OCS that I’m half way through making. During testing I’m stuck when it comes to staking options.
The servants (6 Buttons 1 safety ) are attached to a OCS that dutch /books 2 outcomes.
The problem is I can’t dutch/book them as book% servant context . The option to book% is to ridged, it would mean changing 24 rules to change the stake.
I would also use this on a couple of my other servants to improve them.
Thanks
Any chance we could get this added as a staking command.
The reason for this is, I have a OCS that I’m half way through making. During testing I’m stuck when it comes to staking options.
The servants (6 Buttons 1 safety ) are attached to a OCS that dutch /books 2 outcomes.
The problem is I can’t dutch/book them as book% servant context . The option to book% is to ridged, it would mean changing 24 rules to change the stake.
I would also use this on a couple of my other servants to improve them.
Thanks
Sorry for the lack of response, I created a spreadsheet to perform my needs, as this function isn't available in BA.
- ruthlessimon
- Posts: 2094
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm
I am surprised it's not part of BA.
Personally I find it a real menace having to manually calc the staking required to keep my risk/profit even - depending on whether I'm trading something @ 1.2 or @ 6.3 etc (i.e. making sure a 10 tick winner is always £10 etc (hedged, after commission))
There must be a reason BA doesn't include it - & why it isn't pivotal to Peter's trading - although I haven't got a clue myself
Personally I find it a real menace having to manually calc the staking required to keep my risk/profit even - depending on whether I'm trading something @ 1.2 or @ 6.3 etc (i.e. making sure a 10 tick winner is always £10 etc (hedged, after commission))
I aint one to argue with Peter either!!LeTiss wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:45 amI've asked for this many times, but Peter thinks it's shit
When I was starting to make money on BF, I used to calculate my stakes so I'd make 'x' amount after greening. The beauty was that I simply needed to have a profit of ticks to be in profit - i.e. if I was doing £5 per tick after greening - I wasn't so bothered about redding up for £5 loss on a market, as I knew I'd get a 2 tick movement somewhere else for £10
It was huge in mentally allowing me to take reds, as my trading became about ticks rather than money. I doubt I'd still be here without this change of mentality
If we use the drop down box we can have a setting of £5 per tick. Therefore, backing a 1.50 shot = £500 stakes, but I struggle to see why £5 after greening cannot be added, so backing a 1.50 shot becomes £750 instead
Like I say, Peter thinks it's useless. Let's face it, who the f**k are we to argue with PW when it comes to trading
There must be a reason BA doesn't include it - & why it isn't pivotal to Peter's trading - although I haven't got a clue myself
Peter never saw the relevance, because he was interested in betting, but not unheathily so.
Some of us, and I'm including myself, gravitated to trading having previously been a punter that gambled beyond his means.
This lead to catastrophic decisions on my part when I was struggling to accept red screens.
I maintain my stance, that I wouldn't be here today, if I hadn't adopted this staking method. Making my trading all about ticks and not pure money, was absolutely imperitive in giving me the strength to happily accept a loss and move onto the next market
Some of us, and I'm including myself, gravitated to trading having previously been a punter that gambled beyond his means.
This lead to catastrophic decisions on my part when I was struggling to accept red screens.
I maintain my stance, that I wouldn't be here today, if I hadn't adopted this staking method. Making my trading all about ticks and not pure money, was absolutely imperitive in giving me the strength to happily accept a loss and move onto the next market