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

The sport of kings.
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

Niko wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:49 pm
I think there is too much thinking about it going on.....
+1
User avatar
SeaHorseRacing
Posts: 2893
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 7:06 pm

ShaunWhite wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:58 pm
spreadbetting wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:22 pm
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
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:49 am

Derek27 wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:51 pm
Anna List wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:05 pm
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.
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23477
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Anna List wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:05 pm
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.
Anna List wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:44 am
'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.
Anna List wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:44 am
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.
Anna List wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:44 am
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.
Last edited by Derek27 on Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
spreadbetting
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm

Derek27 wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:53 pm
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.
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

spreadbetting wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:09 pm
Derek27 wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:53 pm
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.
Anna might not be a classical trader but she knows her stuff, going back long way. I'd have said a very long way but that would have been indelicate ;)
Anna List
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:49 am

Derek27 wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:53 pm
Anna List wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:05 pm
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?

What you don't understand, because you are not a trader, is that 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.
Anna List wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:44 am
'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.
Anna List wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:44 am
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), but that's something you wouldn't understand because you have no experience of trading. 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.
Anna List wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:44 am
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.
Derek, next time, BEFORE you comment, at least have the decency to READ my post.

If a trader allows a trade to go in play, then that isn't trading, is it? It's backing or laying, unless, of course you intend to complete the trade in-running. But then, that's gambling.

It's this type of bettor that my post was aimed at AND, I made that perfectly clear. I didn't suggest that the comments were aimed at you. If you can't read properly or understand, that's not my fault.

My comments weren't aimed at anyone in particular. Nor were they aimed at genuine TRADERS. They were aimed at anyone who trades but allows their unmatched bets to go in play in order to avoid a loss because the trade goes against you.

Why, if you aren't trading, aren't you closing out trades pre-off and taking the relatively small loss? Is it because your bank is overly exposed and therefore your loss isn't going to be relatively small? In which case, there's the real problem - an overly exposed bank.

To such people, all I would say is, if you are prepared to allow an unmatched bet to go in play, then do not over-expose your bank and, for goodness sake, learn something about horses and racing. Don't take the risk. It's this kind of activity that leads to loss-recovery and catastrophic losses.

Derek, if this upsets you - fine. Be upset. You have that right. Don't expect me to care though because, quite frankly, I don't.

Have a nice day.

I won't be back.
Anna List
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:49 am

ShaunWhite wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:33 pm
spreadbetting wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:09 pm
Derek27 wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:53 pm
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.
Anna might not be a classical trader but she knows her stuff, going back long way. I'd have said a very long way but that would have been indelicate ;)
Shaun

I don't mind indelicate comments. I really don't. After all, this is the world of gambling where it's dog eat dog and cat eat mouse.

I do mind that people can't be bothered to read and understand before commenting. That I do mind.

Anyways, thanks for you comments.

Take care and have a great weekend.
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23477
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

spreadbetting wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:09 pm
Derek27 wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:53 pm
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.
And you're telling me to calm down. :lol:
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23477
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Anna List wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:39 pm
Derek, if this upsets you - fine. Be upset. You have that right. Don't expect me to care though because, quite frankly, I don't.

Have a nice day.

I won't be back.
If I've misunderstood your post then I sincerely apologise. I'm not upset and don't mind criticism but I sense from your tone that I've may have angered you. However, unlike you, I do care because that was not my intention, so I am sorry if my post irritated you.
DLB999
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:14 am

The possible cure.

After a few days of thinking I've come up with a plan. This plan is geared towards breaking the habit of not taking a red or exposing my bank to too high percentage a red in the first place, leading to me going in play in an attempt to recover losses.

Bank will be £20 again. Stakes will be set to 0.05p profit a tick. This means in order to reach a 2% loss of bank the price would have to move significantly against me. Such a low risk exposure would mean there should be no problem taking reds psychologically. I have a high strike rate so the greens throughout the day should add up.

There is another side to this. I've been researching commitment contracts. They seem to work well. I have given my long term partner access to my Betdaq account, she is well aware of what my profits and losses should look like with the bank and staking being used and will be checking every trading day. Should I blow another bank in-play, she is going to ban me from all exchanges and I will quit trading. The deal has been made.

I also have some automation running to hedge before post.

So automation, risk management, and commitment contract. This will continue for 2 months. After which I will increase bank to around £100. The same checking will happen from my partner for another 2 months, after which bank will be increased again.

How do people feel about this plan? Is there anything here people do not like?
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

DLB999 wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:25 pm
The possible cure.
It's about whatever works for the indiviual. I don't think there are rights and wrongs when it comes to this sort of thing.

The main advantage I can see is that if you end up having a break from trading then you can have the peace of mind that you gave it a good shot rather than just playing around chaotically. One thing I do like about your plan is that you are seeing success as being in control of those reds, if you do that then the up side will look after itself.

You could maybe include a little reward at the end of any days you complete where you kept on plan. I'll leave it to you and your partner to work out what might work for you ;) ....or you could be made to sleep on the sofa if you mess up? That should sharpen your mind.

Stay positive, it sounds like you're down to just 1 or 2 issues which must be a good thing.
spreadbetting
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm

DLB999 wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:25 pm

Bank will be £20 again. Stakes will be set to 0.05p profit a tick. This means in order to reach a 2% loss of bank the price would have to move significantly against me. Such a low risk exposure would mean there should be no problem taking reds psychologically. I have a high strike rate so the greens throughout the day should add up.
Few people have problems with low exposure reds going against them it's the big ones that matter :) I think all you'll end up doing is giving yourself a false sense of security and lapse back into old habits once a big red comes along. Face your fears and just close out the big reds, your high strike rate will soon recover any tradig losses no matter how big they are if your trading strategy actually works in the first place and you haven't been kidding yourself by boosting profits with bad habits. Avoiding the situation is pointless as it will crop up sometime no matter how hard you try the run and avoid it.
convoysur-2
Posts: 1110
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:00 am

the answer to the authors problem is in this 5 min video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYLyRwStCxA
User avatar
ruthlessimon
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm

spreadbetting wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:50 pm
Few people have problems with low exposure reds going against them it's the big ones that matter :)
I'm inclined to actually disagree with that. Personally, I think a blown bank, smashed screens is actually quite rare. Obviously not in the case of the OP, but for people reading this who aren't in that position, but are struggling - apathy (caused by a lack of progress - consistent niggly losses) is the big killer. You arrive at the market, & you just don't care anymore. You're not reviewing your trades, you've lost that spark & hunger you had when you were brand new, you're on twitter 50% of the time during the afternoon etc. In a football match a team that's 3-0 down, generally don't go all out attack to bring it back. Their heads drop, they don't press as hard, lose mental energy. Then they go 4-0, 5-0 down (think Brazil 2014). It takes one hell of an effort to just say - "let's just not concede any more lads."

I reckon the majority of traders fail this way.
Post Reply

Return to “Trading Horse racing”