The going in-play problem. Yes, another thread about it.

[Derek27]

I did put a figure in the reply I gave, it was about £-4.50 before going in play. Original bank was £20 a few days ago, i started at £24.50 today. So the red would have been about 18%. I see now allowing such a situation to happen was ridiculous. Not as ridiculous as losing the lot though.

Apologies, I thought you were referring to your loss for the day.

[ShaunWhite]

It's entirely up to you how long you go on for, but personally I would do one of two things. Either give up immediately, or give myself on final chance.

Closing trade and cutting losses is one of the very basics of trading and one of the first things you need to master.

Well that's encouraging.

Accepting losses may well be a basic, but I suspect plenty of people here 'mastered' lots of other things before that one.

If you mastered it as quickly or easily as you make it sound (one last chance etc) then you're either 1 in 100, have a short memory or a liar.

It might take a dozen fresh ideas before one clicks, if you enjoy it and can afford it then why stop?

[to75ne]

It's entirely up to you how long you go on for, but personally I would do one of two things. Either give up immediately, or give myself on final chance.

Closing trade and cutting losses is one of the very basics of trading and one of the first things you need to master.

Well that's encouraging.

Accepting losses may well be a basic, but I suspect plenty of people here 'mastered' lots of other things before that one.

If you mastered it as quickly or easily as you make it sound (one last chance etc) then you're either 1 in 100, have a short memory or a liar.

It might take a dozen fresh ideas before one clicks, if you enjoy it and can afford it then why stop?

i tend to agree with derek27 but i dont think taking loses is something most people who cant take a loss can learn, the evidence over the years from these forums would seem to support my view (although only anecdotal). i believe being able to take a loss is mainly something inate in some individuals make up, maybe sharpend/honed over the years but not learned, born with.

[ShaunWhite]

I'm a firm believer in the view that you can learn to do anything if you put your mind to it. Almost everyone could learn almost anything. The only thing that differentiates people is how easy they find it and how long it takes.

[to75ne]

I'm a firm believer in the view that you can learn to do anything if you put your mind to it. Almost everyone could learn almost anything. The only thing that differentiates people is how easy they find it and how long it takes.

there maybe truth in that but once again the evidence from these forums (although anecdotal) does not support that view, quite the contrary.

[Derek27]

It's entirely up to you how long you go on for, but personally I would do one of two things. Either give up immediately, or give myself on final chance.

Closing trade and cutting losses is one of the very basics of trading and one of the first things you need to master.

Well that's encouraging.

Accepting losses may well be a basic, but I suspect plenty of people here 'mastered' lots of other things before that one.

If you mastered it as quickly or easily as you make it sound (one last chance etc) then you're either 1 in 100, have a short memory or a liar.

It might take a dozen fresh ideas before one clicks, if you enjoy it and can afford it then why stop?

I know I don't have a short memory and that I'm not a liar, so I'll take what you said as a compliment.

I did learn it pretty quickly; only twice have I lost a substantial percentage of my bank when I chose not to play safe, a few more times I've lost a lesser but still unacceptable amount. You can call me 1 in a 100 if you want, but I would put it down to the fact that I'm fearful of, and can't afford to lose, a lot of money. And as a mathematical person and former gambler I don't take gambles that aren't in my favour or excessive.

But back to the subject:

How long shall i keep trying before banning myself from all exchanges? Serious question here.

If you're seriously thinking of banning yourself from all exchanges, perhaps encouragement to keep betting isn't necessarily the best thing. Only the OP knows how much he could lose and whether he can afford to lose it, which is why I said it's entirely up to him.

[Derek27]

I'm a firm believer in the view that you can learn to do anything if you put your mind to it. Almost everyone could learn almost anything. The only thing that differentiates people is how easy they find it and how long it takes.

I agree you can learn to do anything within reason (I would never learn rocket science), the problem is if it takes 200 years to learn, or if it takes 5 years but costs as much money as you can earn in a life time, it's as good as not being able to learn it.

Edit: I'm not making any reference to the OP.

[DLB999]

Just like to thank everyone for their replies. I'm taking it all in as best I can.

Derek27, its not a gambling problem or a dependency. The reason for banning would be drawing a line and saying I'm done with this. I gave it a year of learning and I kept making the same mistake. Its not for me.

I've not lost terrible amounts. However I have lost amounts that I knew I could have substantially reduced. Its hard for me because I've pretty much been good at everything I ever tried. I lost £24 today. Ill admit i was pretty gutted but it was more the good progress all day to blow it all in 5 minutes. I enjoy trading and all it entails, I had a week off so I've been doing what I enjoy. Again, it becomes less enjoyable when you keep falling at the same hurdle.

I'm very aware I cant use larger amounts if I cant use £20 properly. When I look back at the amounts I was using before, I don't actually know how I did it. Although it was actually what I'm doing now, just with bigger amounts.

Lots to think about.

[Niko]

I think there is too much thinking about it going on.....

[Derek27]

I'm probably being a butinsky and have written about this before but I'll write about this again.

I see two problems here:

1. Staking

2. Race analysis.

Let's look at staking first:

Analyse your past performance as a trader and determine the maximum number of trades in a row that you have actually lost. Let's call this the Actual Longest Losing run or ALLR.

Now, using your strike rate and the number of past trades, determine the maximum number of trades in a row that you ought to have theoretically lost. Let's call this the Theoretical Longest Losing run or TLLR.

Now, take the longer of the TLLR and ALLR and multiply by 3.5. Let's call this the maximum LLR or MLLR.

Now take your betting bank and divide it by the MLLR.

This is your maximum exposure per bet (stake if you place a back bet first and liability if you place a lay bet first).

Exceed the maximum exposure on a bet and you are asking for trouble.

Now let's look at Race Analysis.

Hands up all those traders who have a reasonable idea which horses in the race might win and which horses will probably lose.

Those who put their hands up, you can go because you don't need me. You know whether or not it's safe-ish to let your unmatched trade go in play.

Now, those who didn't put their hands up, why didn't you?

Ah, yes, I see. You don't know the first thing about horses. That's fine. I don't know the first thing about trading. We can't know everything. AND THAT'S WHY I DON'T TRADE and it's the reason why YOU SHOULDN'T LET YOUR UNMATCHED BETS GO IN PLAY.

Ah, but you want to let your unmatched bets go in play. Fine. THEN LEARN ABOUT RACING AND HORSES.

You don't want to.

Fine. Then don't let your unmatched trades go in play.

You want to let your unmatched bets go in play and you don't want to learn about horses and racing?

Fine. If losing is fine with you, JFDI.

I agree with your race analysis but would add one point. Even if you are a trader and gambler, it is only sensible to let trades run if, as well as the odds being in your favour the size of the liability is appropriate. Trading generally involves placing much larger bets than if you were gambling only, which could result in over staking.

I have to disagree with your staking calculation. Say you have a bank of £1000.

If you win all the time your maximum exposure results in division by zero!

If your longest losing run is 1, maximum exposure could be as high as £285, even though you lost £100 and win pennies the rest of the time.

If your longest losing run is 10, maximum exposure could be as low as £28.50, even though you've lost £2 during your losing run but have a winning average of £20 per market.

I don't think the length of your losing runs, either theoretical or actual are relevant. Your maximum liability should be proportional to your bank (in which case you can never go bust), but can also be varied according to the nature of the market you're trading.

[ShaunWhite]

I think there is too much thinking about it going on.....

+1

[SeaHorseRacing]

People love to look for scapegoats to hide their failings, in play is just a convenient one for trading.

+1
Going in-play isn't the problem it's the consequence of a problem.
Anyone can take the small day to day reds, it's the unexpected big ones that freak people out and do unplanned things.

This is probably imo the best advice ever given on this forum.

[Anna List]

I'm probably being a butinsky and have written about this before but I'll write about this again.

I see two problems here:

1. Staking

2. Race analysis.

Let's look at staking first:

Analyse your past performance as a trader and determine the maximum number of trades in a row that you have actually lost. Let's call this the Actual Longest Losing run or ALLR.

Now, using your strike rate and the number of past trades, determine the maximum number of trades in a row that you ought to have theoretically lost. Let's call this the Theoretical Longest Losing run or TLLR.

Now, take the longer of the TLLR and ALLR and multiply by 3.5. Let's call this the maximum LLR or MLLR.

Now take your betting bank and divide it by the MLLR.

This is your maximum exposure per bet (stake if you place a back bet first and liability if you place a lay bet first).

Exceed the maximum exposure on a bet and you are asking for trouble.

Now let's look at Race Analysis.

Hands up all those traders who have a reasonable idea which horses in the race might win and which horses will probably lose.

Those who put their hands up, you can go because you don't need me. You know whether or not it's safe-ish to let your unmatched trade go in play.

Now, those who didn't put their hands up, why didn't you?

Ah, yes, I see. You don't know the first thing about horses. That's fine. I don't know the first thing about trading. We can't know everything. AND THAT'S WHY I DON'T TRADE and it's the reason why YOU SHOULDN'T LET YOUR UNMATCHED BETS GO IN PLAY.

Ah, but you want to let your unmatched bets go in play. Fine. THEN LEARN ABOUT RACING AND HORSES.

You don't want to.

Fine. Then don't let your unmatched trades go in play.

You want to let your unmatched bets go in play and you don't want to learn about horses and racing?

Fine. If losing is fine with you, JFDI.

I agree with your race analysis but would add one point. Even if you are a trader and gambler, it is only sensible to let trades run if, as well as the odds being in your favour the size of the liability is appropriate. Trading generally involves placing much larger bets than if you were gambling only, which could result in over staking.

I have to disagree with your staking calculation. Say you have a bank of £1000.

If you win all the time your maximum exposure results in division by zero!

If your longest losing run is 1, maximum exposure could be as high as £285, even though you lost £100 and win pennies the rest of the time.

If your longest losing run is 10, maximum exposure could be as low as £28.50, even though you've lost £2 during your losing run but have a winning average of £20 per market.

I don't think the length of your losing runs, either theoretical or actual are relevant. Your maximum liability should be proportional to your bank (in which case you can never go bust), but can also be varied according to the nature of the market you're trading.

You may disagree with my staking plan but I have tested it over quite a few years. Admittedly, I'm not a trader but, if you let your unmatched trades go in play, neither are you.

'If you win all the time .....' IF ONLY. If you won all of the time, there wouldn't be a problem and we wouldn't be discussing the issue. I'm basing my staking plan on reality. You are basing your comments on what?

If you let your unmatched trades go in play with an exposure of £28.50, you won't have lost £2 during your losing run, will you?

Anyways, be a trader, let your unmatched trades go in play with an overly exposed bank. Knock yourself out. It ain't my money. Why should I care?

Just tried to help is all.

[Derek27]

I don't know the first thing about trading ..... AND THAT'S WHY I DON'T TRADE

With respect Anna, if you don't know the first thing about trading you should not be advising traders about how much to stake!!!

I don't know how or where you got the impression that I let trades go in-play? Are you confusing me with the OP?

When trading exposure isn't anywhere near as important as your level of risk - they are not the same!

For example, if you back Brain Power in the Clarence House Chase for £50 @ 4.0, you have an exposure of £50 and a risk of £50. If you put your order in at 12.0, your exposure is £50 but your risk is almost zero, because there's virtually no chance of getting that bet matched. So your risk depends on where you choose to enter the market and the nature / stability of the market. It cannot easily be calculated but experienced traders will have good judgement of it.

'If you win all the time .....' IF ONLY. If you won all of the time, there wouldn't be a problem and we wouldn't be discussing the issue. I'm basing my staking plan on reality. You are basing your comments on what?

Sorry, but if I won all the time it would not solve all the worlds problems, other people would still have problems so we would still be discussing this. I was simply saying that numbers can't be divided by zero.

If you let your unmatched trades go in play with an exposure of £28.50, you won't have lost £2 during your losing run, will you?

I haven't a clue what you're talking about here. We are not talking about letting trades go in-play but how much liability you should expose yourself to. It's perfectly possible to have a trading strategy with long losing runs where you only lose a few quid but has good results on your winning markets (such as free bet strategies). Your staking plan would only restrict profits because it considers losing runs without considering how much they actually cost.

To illustrate the point, albeit artificially, imagine a trader who greens up for £9.95, and then puts £10 on the favourite. A losing run could cost 5 pence a time but a winner could net £50.

Anyways, be a trader, let your unmatched trades go in play with an overly exposed bank. Knock yourself out. It ain't my money. Why should I care?

Thank you for the advice but I'll stick to what I'm doing.

When I was gambling I used the Kelly criterium as a framework to my staking. If your stake is proportional to your bank it doen't matter how long your losing runs are. It will reduce losses for losers and increase profits for winners.

[spreadbetting]

With respect Anna, if you don't know the first thing about trading you should not be advising traders about how much to stake!!!

Calm down Derek, it's a forum so people will have differing views, traders dont have a monopoly on staking. Surely it's up to the person asking for the advice to decide whether that advice is worth taking or not.