ContradictionFerru123 wrote:Let's assume that, in this random market, I have an edge.
Losing strategies wanted
Well, yes, although I did acknowledge that in my post!
I was merely illustrating the principle that taking may be better than offering if your fill rate is low.
I was merely illustrating the principle that taking may be better than offering if your fill rate is low.
Euler wrote:ContradictionFerru123 wrote:Let's assume that, in this random market, I have an edge.
I guess it all depends on whether you feel you can definitely find a trend. There are instances where I will take, simply because I know the price is certain to head in one direction, so I'm switching from benefit from market characteristics to anticipating them and trying to beat others to the chase. But that tends to be a small part of the overall picture.
-
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:28 am
Also the market could act different for two different people doing the same thing Jeff. Say the draw price on football is coming in and at 2s, you back for 2 quid and the market holds there with 1000 quid for 5 mins so your 2 quid is exposed for a long period. However, in the same scenario someone else has the same opportunity and they take the 1000 quid and offer a further 5k on the back side. The result of the event will still be the same at the final outcome but the market could act totally different because of stake size in my opinion.
I think sometimes people look at the outcome of the event as being efficient rather than finding some value in the short term movements to which you don't actually care about the final outcome.
I think sometimes people look at the outcome of the event as being efficient rather than finding some value in the short term movements to which you don't actually care about the final outcome.
His losing strategy is so good you can probably do the exact opposite and make money? That's what i think.LinusP wrote:Why would you not want to share this Peter?Euler wrote:Curiously, I did eventually find a consistently losing strategy. But I'm not in a position to share it unfortunately.
I think Peter's motivation was merely to demonstrate how difficult it is to lose money.
People often say things like 'the market is rigged against me, when I do x I lose money because the market manipulators cause to to take a red'. Peter is basically saying, 'OK, give me your criteria, and I'll test whether you're right using a large sample of data'.
Jeff
People often say things like 'the market is rigged against me, when I do x I lose money because the market manipulators cause to to take a red'. Peter is basically saying, 'OK, give me your criteria, and I'll test whether you're right using a large sample of data'.
Jeff
Agree, Peter just trys to push people in the right direction.Ferru123 wrote:I think Peter's motivation was merely to demonstrate how difficult it is to lose money.
People often say things like 'the market is rigged against me, when I do x I lose money because the market manipulators cause to to take a red'. Peter is basically saying, 'OK, give me your criteria, and I'll test whether you're right using a large sample of data'.
Jeff
I don't think there is such a thing as a winning or loosing strategy! You have to think in terms of approaches that have tendancy towards results that are positive or negative. The aim would be to get more of positive results and less of negative results.
There is no silver bullet, and if it was there, then more than few would've discovered it which would make it redundant.
I've been absent from trading for about 10 months but have developed successful bot recently that does the work for me. But it is not based on strategy. I don't particularly like the word STRATEGY. It's a bit like emperor's clothing.
I would rather concentrate on improving bit by bit everyday by adding things that have more probability of working and subtrating that have tendancy of loosing. Eventually you will get to a point where return becomes predictable.
But I would urge you to stop using the word STRATEGY.
There is no silver bullet, and if it was there, then more than few would've discovered it which would make it redundant.
I've been absent from trading for about 10 months but have developed successful bot recently that does the work for me. But it is not based on strategy. I don't particularly like the word STRATEGY. It's a bit like emperor's clothing.
I would rather concentrate on improving bit by bit everyday by adding things that have more probability of working and subtrating that have tendancy of loosing. Eventually you will get to a point where return becomes predictable.
But I would urge you to stop using the word STRATEGY.
Sorry, but that sounds like an example of that thing that you've forbidden us from referring to by name...Photon wrote: I would rather concentrate on improving bit by bit everyday by adding things that have more probability of working and subtrating that have tendancy of loosing. Eventually you will get to a point where return becomes predictable.
But I would urge you to stop using the word STRATEGY.
A rose by any other name is still a rose, ditto a str...
It wasFerru123 wrote:I think Peter's motivation was merely to demonstrate how difficult it is to lose money.
People often say things like 'the market is rigged against me, when I do x I lose money because the market manipulators cause to to take a red'. Peter is basically saying, 'OK, give me your criteria, and I'll test whether you're right using a large sample of data'.
Jeff