ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 2:54 pm
There's two components, the edge from raw numbers you can automate (such as how SB and I trade and I agree with him about the size of that. Even 1/2% is perfectly fine when you trade over 1000 selections a day) and then there's the edge you can add to that as a manual trader by using your skill and judgement. Peter might add 10% and I might deduct 10%.during execution. But a 5% edge without your 'soft' manual input is very very unlikely.
But even then profit is a combination of edge, turnover and frequency of opportunity. A scalper might turnover £1000 and make £10 on every race or a swing trader might turnover £100 and make £20 on every second race.
spreadbetting wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:14 pm
I find it the oposite to be honest, the lower the percentage the more reliable the results become as you're playing such a large numbers of markets the eventual outcome is more predictable.
Shaun/SB in comparing the returns we are not comparing like for like strategies. I agree with your comments re your strategies and the difference manual input makes but my 5% active trading, manual or automatic … it refers to making selections from what I refer to as statistical advantages, like the now well known draw advantage at Beverley of a few years ago. My BOTs run in conjunction with my database and seek to find value by comparing prices with possible historical/trending edges and placing individual bets on selections … B2L and L2B would be further examples but this is not what I wanted my question to refer to. Maybe I confused the topic by mentioning the BOT %age I look for without thinking of the different types of BOTs being used. I'm actually not wanting to explore your 1,000's of automated trades either, I am thinking of manual trading!
spreadbetting wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:14 pm
I'd be very surpised if people were returning 10%,50% or even 100% average profits from their stakes. If we consider prices around 2's you're looking at 10 ticks just to return 5%, back £100 @ 2's close by laying £105.26 @ 1.9 and that's not even factoring in the fact you'd have losers.
Thanks for your continued interest guys but I think my point is being missed. I'm
not asking the %age of turnover (total stakes) I'm asking that if someone usually trades with say average £100 stakes per trade would they want/expect/hope to have an average profit of say £20 per race i.e. the average profit is 20% of the average individual stake of £100 (
not the total stakes). Yes, to make that £20 profit they will most certainly have to make multiple trades (of £100). What I'm trying to get at is a comparison of the profits of someone who trades at £2 per trade with someone who trades at say £100 (or more per trade). Some guys here post their profits from trading in the £'s hundreds but the readers don't know if they are staking £2 per trade to achieve their claimed profits or £1,000 per trade (or Photoshop!
)!
The number of trades performed is obviously relevant but just as relevant is the average stake used. To make an average profit of 40 pence per race when trading can seem pathetic and demoralising but if you are only trading with £2 stakes that's equivalent to making an average profit of £20 per race if trading with stakes of £100.