Thank you, I'll have a look.arbitrage16 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:06 pmRecommend a book called psycho-cybernetics by Maxwell Maltzbrimson25 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:12 pmI'm as close and as far as ever.
I've been around gambling and poker for many years. I've been (very) successful in both and taken some (huge) real beatings from both. My long-term failure in each is pretty much certain; my leak is my anger/ self-loathing and sabotaging behaviour. I suspect it will be the same for this. I sometimes think that catastrophic defeat is actually what I want. If I'm ever able to get a grip of my own mind, I think I could get good regular returns. Chances of getting said grip are probably somewhere between 10% and 20%. Time scale? Unsure, about 6 months, I'll know.
The sad truth to the question: why do many gamblers gamble if they keep losing? ... is that they want to lose because it's a sort of affirmation of their internal "I'm a screw-up" narrative. (That's why the "when the fun stops, stop" slogan is so funny. It stopped a long bloody time ago).
I think that's probably not quite as true of most traders, who, judging by this forum seem more level-headed and grown-up.
A question for newbies & beginners
That's true.spreadbetting wrote: ↑Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:42 pmBut if you can correctly identify why you're losing it's a lot easier to correct it.
For the purpose of this post I'm going to assume by self-sabotage you mean you're deliberately making mistakes. And like you've probably already heard, this game is about eliminating mistakes -- or, not losing [significantly]. So in this post I'll talk about how you should be going about doing that, regardless of whether or not you're self-sabotaging.
Sure, self-sabotage may be the actual cause of your demise, but such psychological issues are very loosely in our control, meaning we don't have (or believe we have) much ability/likelihood to overcome these issues. Firstly I'd propose it's much more useful for you to blame something more tangible and in your control, for example, a lack of organisation and execution of that organisation.
e.g. "For me to avoid major mistakes, I must define my trading decisions based on logic to ensure I don't encounter mistakes, and not deviate from those decisions" - so that's having a trading plan and being able to follow it.
So this could result in 3 major camps:
A) no defined trading plan = significant long-term loser
B) defined trading plan (not consistently adhered to) = significant long-term loser
C) defined trading plan (strictly adhered to) = slight long-term loser / break-even / profitable (depends on edge)
If you're in camp A/B, there's no point worrying about if you have an edge or not, it's more beneficial to identify and eliminate any major mistakes you're repeatedly making, as once they're all gone, your results will literally tell you what your edge is (you can analyse + tweak from there)
I think that believing psychological issues such as self-sabotage to be the actual cause for you being a long-term loser sets you on the path for guaranteed failure regardless of whether or not its true. By believing you're the victim of your own psychological issues, you're essentially saying: "I keep deviating from my plan, and the cause is a psychological issue, which is out of my control"
...or perhaps more accurately:
"I keep deviating from my plan and the cause is a psychological issue which has formed gradually over many years and will likely take a huge amount of effort to change and may even be so cemented into my personality that it may never change at all
Can you see how these beliefs might be self-fulfilling? Dangerous stuff!
Instead, attempt to tie your losses to things within your control by attempting to identify triggers which set off whatever 'self-sabotaging' behaviour you think you might have (mistakes).
e.g. "I keep deviating from my plan because I'm unable to stomach losses above £x"
The process should be:
- Trade
- Log your mistakes
- Analyse them outside of trading hours (calm, logical state)
- Identify trigger for those logged mistakes (guess if nothing is obvious)
- Implement a new behavioural change which aims to avoid the trigger in the first place
Repeat until you've eliminated the mistake. Move on to the next mistake.
Realise that even if you truly are self-sabotaging, this will still be triggered behaviour, and is as such avoidable.
e.g. you begin to make mistakes (deviate from your trading plan) when you're up x amount in the day.
...In such a case you'd first seek to identify what the amount was (prudency is your friend), then come up with and implement a behavioural change such as "If I ever reach +£x in the day, I will stop trading to prevent my self-sabotaging behaviour"
gl
When you have the market open it naturally is refreshing as you would expect but when you close the market it will refresh as governed by your guardian. Have a look at the 'Advanced' tab in guardian - check if the restrict refresh is ticked - if it is - either untick or set the restriction to the period you require.
ill try that..thanksJukebox wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:10 pmWhen you have the market open it naturally is refreshing as you would expect but when you close the market it will refresh as governed by your guardian. Have a look at the 'Advanced' tab in guardian - check if the restrict refresh is ticked - if it is - either untick or set the restriction to the period you require.
There are many reasons - but mainly - as with any horse at any odds - because they hope to profit from it. The reason 1000 occurs so often though is because thats the highest Betfair allows - so if you think a horse has only a 2,000/1, 5,000/1 or 10,000/1 or even no chance - as a layer 1000 is the best you can offer.
I remember Peter Webb once saying that he'd both backed a 1000 winner - and laid a 1.01 loser - (There was at least one of those today at Ascot)
Outside of horse racing Leicester City famously won the premier league with early odds at the bookies of 5000/1 - you'd not have got better than 1000 on Betfair - but you might have laid it on the exchange.
Euler put up a list a few days ago that included a couple of golfers at The Open who started at 1000 and made the cut and their odds had consequently dropped considerably.
I remember Peter Webb once saying that he'd both backed a 1000 winner - and laid a 1.01 loser - (There was at least one of those today at Ascot)
Outside of horse racing Leicester City famously won the premier league with early odds at the bookies of 5000/1 - you'd not have got better than 1000 on Betfair - but you might have laid it on the exchange.
Euler put up a list a few days ago that included a couple of golfers at The Open who started at 1000 and made the cut and their odds had consequently dropped considerably.
-
iambic_pentameter
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 1:24 pm
There was a user by the name of Warwick Hunt on the Betfair Official Forums who laid a 1000 winner for £150
In his defence, the commentator had called the wrong horse but still would be filed under "Not a great day at the office"
In his defence, the commentator had called the wrong horse but still would be filed under "Not a great day at the office"
-
Dublin_Flyer
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:39 am
I've found 4 that started at 1000 on Horseracebase;
Reason being people might offer 1000 are many, maybe they've watched the horse and didn't like what they saw previously, maybe they're bookmaking and need to offer the max price on one horse to balance their book/make their margin, or the trainer got lucky.
In the 4 cases where the winner started at 1000, there was either an odds on fav, or a fav and 2nd fav way lower price than any others, basically A.N.Other winning what the market thought was a 2 horse race. Similar to the publicity around Cheltenham Gold Cup 2010 - Will it be Kauto Star, or Denman?? Imperial Commander said Hold my beer and watch this
Regarding In-Running horses reaching 1000, way more chance of that happening. 2 horses way clear in a chase and both fall at the last fence, you can be sure the rest of the field were in the 100's if not 1000 by then. I haven't got a current subscription to ProForm but you can check figures on how many horses hit 1000 IR and go on to win from there.
In the 4 cases where the winner started at 1000, there was either an odds on fav, or a fav and 2nd fav way lower price than any others, basically A.N.Other winning what the market thought was a 2 horse race. Similar to the publicity around Cheltenham Gold Cup 2010 - Will it be Kauto Star, or Denman?? Imperial Commander said Hold my beer and watch this
Regarding In-Running horses reaching 1000, way more chance of that happening. 2 horses way clear in a chase and both fall at the last fence, you can be sure the rest of the field were in the 100's if not 1000 by then. I haven't got a current subscription to ProForm but you can check figures on how many horses hit 1000 IR and go on to win from there.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.