How smart is automation?

A place to discuss anything.
mancbrady
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:49 pm

Kai wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:48 pm
mancbrady wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:29 pm
I’m not actually using a martingale
Well that's a bit disappointing then, false alarm boys

Image
🤣🤣
User avatar
Kai
Posts: 6092
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:21 pm

Forum always overreacts when people mention martingale as you can see from the very first reply :D
mancbrady
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:49 pm

All for a good reason though, steer people away from disaster
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23475
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Kai wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:55 pm
Forum always overreacts when people mention martingale as you can see from the very first reply :D
That's now my standard reply to anything that involves increasing stakes solely because the previous bet lost (used to be known as the Martingale ;) ) and it took me about 15 minutes to search through all my Martingale-related posts to find it. :)
User avatar
gazuty
Posts: 2547
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:03 am
Location: Green land :)

mancbrady wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:09 pm
All for a good reason though, steer people away from disaster
Whatever your staking plan each bet needs to have a positive expected value. Then it is a question of ensuring that you do all you can to reduce the risk of a bad run ending in bank loss. There are quite a few articles based on this - look at reasons why people do quarter Kelly or half Kelly.

This next bit might be obvious - if the book is under 101 over 99 then the "market" (or wisdom of the crowd) has framed what it considers to the "true" odds. The market can, of course, be wrong - although there is good data around certain events (eg horse racing) that maps results very closely to implied probability. So then it is a matter of discovering where the market/crowd is wrong - it can be hard and that is what sorts the wheat from the chaff.
User avatar
gazuty
Posts: 2547
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:03 am
Location: Green land :)

Kai wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:55 pm
Forum always overreacts when people mention martingale as you can see from the very first reply :D
Yep, but one can almost set one's watch by the frequency of Martingale idea occurence. And the passion expressed for the strategy.
User avatar
firlandsfarm
Posts: 2688
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am

mancbrady wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:29 pm
The thing is I’m not actually using a martingale strategy just a staking plan ...
Martingale is a staking plan as pure as you can get ... increase your bet if the previous bet lost!
mancbrady
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:49 pm

So, back to my original idea.

Does anyone know if there is a rule on automation that will recognise the previous trade resulted a winner and will now cease all trades or at least set the next stake to zero so no more trades are placed, if I have placed a strategy across several races for the day?
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23475
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

mancbrady wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:42 pm
So, back to my original idea.

Does anyone know if there is a rule on automation that will recognise the previous trade resulted a winner and will now cease all trades or at least set the next stake to zero so no more trades are placed, if I have placed a strategy across several races for the day?
You would have been better off phasing your question like that in the first place. ;)

I've so far never used inter-market automation but the best answer so far may have been lost in the Martingale discussion.

viewtopic.php?p=276336#p276336
mancbrady
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:49 pm

Thanks derek
LinusP
Posts: 1871
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:45 pm

mancbrady wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:42 pm
So, back to my original idea.

Does anyone know if there is a rule on automation that will recognise the previous trade resulted a winner and will now cease all trades or at least set the next stake to zero so no more trades are placed, if I have placed a strategy across several races for the day?
I will bite, what is your logic for doing something as mad as this?
User avatar
jimibt
Posts: 3641
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:42 pm
Location: Narnia

LinusP wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:21 pm
mancbrady wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:42 pm
So, back to my original idea.

Does anyone know if there is a rule on automation that will recognise the previous trade resulted a winner and will now cease all trades or at least set the next stake to zero so no more trades are placed, if I have placed a strategy across several races for the day?
I will bite, what is your logic for doing something as mad as this?
without supporting theory, backed by some form of evidence (which needn't give away the strategy) I also find this a tough one to reconcile. in my world view, each trade/bet should be viewed as a platform to strengthen the perceived edge. in the scenario that you are proposing, we either quit when we hit an opportunity to get out, or, we continue until we find a winner (with ever increasing stakes).

my question really (and i'm not being judgemental tbh) is why you would put such jeopardy around a strategy if it had a proven +EV. As it stands, you honestly appear to be risking a multiple of small wins in order to shore up a much larger loss. in short (for me) the jury is out -happy to be otherwise pursuaded. ;)
User avatar
firlandsfarm
Posts: 2688
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am

jimibt wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:18 pm
LinusP wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:21 pm
mancbrady wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:42 pm
So, back to my original idea.

Does anyone know if there is a rule on automation that will recognise the previous trade resulted a winner and will now cease all trades or at least set the next stake to zero so no more trades are placed, if I have placed a strategy across several races for the day?
I will bite, what is your logic for doing something as mad as this?
without supporting theory, backed by some form of evidence (which needn't give away the strategy) I also find this a tough one to reconcile. in my world view, each trade/bet should be viewed as a platform to strengthen the perceived edge. in the scenario that you are proposing, we either quit when we hit an opportunity to get out, or, we continue until we find a winner (with ever increasing stakes).

my question really (and i'm not being judgemental tbh) is why you would put such jeopardy around a strategy if it had a proven +EV. As it stands, you honestly appear to be risking a multiple of small wins in order to shore up a much larger loss. in short (for me) the jury is out -happy to be otherwise pursuaded. ;)
It's the "stop at a winner/profit" strategy. If I only ever stop when in profit then I cannot lose! Or the other way to put it is not "stop-loss" but "stop-win"! The point of a stop-loss is to reduce your losses ... so a stop-win reduces your winnings!

Jimibt ..."you honestly appear to be risking a multiple of small wins in order to shore up a much larger loss" ... isn't that what layers at high odds do, someone has to! :)
User avatar
jimibt
Posts: 3641
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:42 pm
Location: Narnia

firlandsfarm wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 4:41 am
Jimibt ..."you honestly appear to be risking a multiple of small wins in order to shore up a much larger loss" ... isn't that what layers at high odds do, someone has to! :)
too true ;)
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion”