How smart is automation?

[LinusP]

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?

[jimibt]

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.

[firlandsfarm]

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!

[jimibt]

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