How smart is automation?
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.
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.
- firlandsfarm
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am
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?
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.mancbrady wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:42 pmSo, 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'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
I will bite, what is your logic for doing something as mad as this?mancbrady wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:42 pmSo, 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?
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).LinusP wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:21 pmI will bite, what is your logic for doing something as mad as this?mancbrady wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:42 pmSo, 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?
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.
- firlandsfarm
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am
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 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:18 pmwithout 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).LinusP wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:21 pmI will bite, what is your logic for doing something as mad as this?mancbrady wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:42 pmSo, 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?
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.
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 truefirlandsfarm wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 4:41 amJimibt ..."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!