Would really like to learn how to trade inplay??

[Derek27]

If you want to learn to ride a bike, get on and start peddling - the more times you fall off, get up and get back on, the more you have learnt -

I've often fallen off a bike, but never while learning. If I thought I was going to fall I'd press the brakes and put my foot out. That's probably why it took me until the age of 18 to learn to ride a bike.

[ShaunWhite]

All successful traders are considering the value of their next bet rather than thinking too hard about a bet they had sometime in the past even if it was on the same market.

I think you're mostly right, in theory, about this. But I've never seen Peter not green up, so not "all'.'

But I've seen him mention it. And I didn't make it very clear that it's probably easier to make that judgement in a very active market (in-running in-play etc). Pre-off I admit that value or very late value is incredibly hard to gauge on price alone.

[ShaunWhite]

It's all about the (value) entries for me.....

All true, all perfectly valid. And thanks to random betting being 0EV-ish then 'exits' are probably a wash anyway.

If I talking about exits etc in a slightly provocative way its just because I think it's important for new people to realise that bets don't just vanish if you do them in pairs. Every 'trading' bet they place is in fact a real bet that runs and is settled individually. It saddens me a bit when I see new in_play players prepared to exit at any price (be it for a green or red), all because that part of the equation was skirted over in trading 101 and they don't even realise a close can be anything but good or at least be no harm.

You probably know anyway that there's a Lilliputian style conflict going on between the nevergreens and the alwaysgreens. I take the middle ground but from the direction this forum steers the new recruits you'd sometimes think there wasn't even a choice to be made.

[wearthefoxhat]

It's all about the (value) entries for me.....

All true, all perfectly valid. And thanks to random betting being 0EV-ish then 'exits' are probably a wash anyway.

If I talking about exits etc in a slightly provocative way its just because I think it's important for new people to realise that bets don't just vanish if you do them in pairs. Every 'trading' bet they place is in fact a real bet that runs and is settled individually. It saddens me a bit when I see new in_play players prepared to exit at any price (be it for a green or red), all because that part of the equation was skirted over in trading 101 and they don't even realise a close can be anything but good or at least be no harm.

You probably know anyway that there's a Lilliputian style conflict going on between the nevergreens and the alwaysgreens. I take the middle ground but from the direction this forum steers the new recruits you'd sometimes think there wasn't even a choice to be made.

One of the most interesting bots Dallas posted up (there have been many) nearly 6 years ago, that has been downloaded over 2300+ times, is;

The Directional Scalping pre-off Guardian Bot.
viewtopic.php?f=53&t=12610

It can be adapted to either B2L or L2B, made to cross over Pre to In-Play with the potential to "let it ride" for a brucey bonus. If value selections can be found with the right entry, then the value exit points look after themselves.

Other bots than can be cannabalized are:

DOB with Moving Exit Guardian
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=19933

Dobing @ 50% & Back 2 Lay @20% Guardian Automation Bot.
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=13629

Protecting your trade with the option to scratch, if it goes the other way, is just the cost of doing business.

[gazuty]

A lot of wisdom in this thread.

[goat68]

It's all about the (value) entries for me.....

All true, all perfectly valid. And thanks to random betting being 0EV-ish then 'exits' are probably a wash anyway.

If I talking about exits etc in a slightly provocative way its just because I think it's important for new people to realise that bets don't just vanish if you do them in pairs. Every 'trading' bet they place is in fact a real bet that runs and is settled individually. It saddens me a bit when I see new in_play players prepared to exit at any price (be it for a green or red), all because that part of the equation was skirted over in trading 101 and they don't even realise a close can be anything but good or at least be no harm.

You probably know anyway that there's a Lilliputian style conflict going on between the nevergreens and the alwaysgreens. I take the middle ground but from the direction this forum steers the new recruits you'd sometimes think there wasn't even a choice to be made.

I think this is really important, and has been to me, fully understanding this value thing, and understanding why you are placing every individual "bet" is key.

[Betr_bet]

Thank you so much guys!! Reading a lot of the comments it appears value is of the utmost importance, however how do you begin to learn what is and isn't value??? I've always had an issue with determining value so I definitely think I need to rethink going inplay until I know wtf I'm doing value or otherwise....

[ShaunWhite]

Thank you so much guys!! Reading a lot of the comments it appears value is of the utmost importance, however how do you begin to learn what is and isn't value??? I've always had an issue with determining value so I definitely think I need to rethink going inplay until I know wtf I'm doing value or otherwise....

Don't be too phased by the finer points for now, just be aware of them.

Perhaps start by looking into what @wearthefoxhat suggests. Looking for pure value alone is pretty advanced and if you look for price movement initially instead that's going to work fine too. Value and movement are inexorably linked and produce the same outcomes so just keep it fairly simple, L2B or B2L would definately be a good start and you'll become familiar with the software and the basics like money management and record keeping and that sort of thing.

Tbh the pure value approach is much more suited to larger scale automation so if that's not where you see yourself going then finding your value by the alternative "trading price movement" route is absolutely valid and the right way to go about it.

[Kai]

Thank you so much guys!! Reading a lot of the comments it appears value is of the utmost importance, however how do you begin to learn what is and isn't value???

Does it really matter how you begin? What matters most is to begin, like Tuco above has bluntly pointed out

[wearthefoxhat]

Jolly Green 8 year old thread is also worth a read too. (worth browsing through JG's posts at some time)

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9752


For the craic, I'll post up a race/selection today, that could have some interest one way or another. It's not about the actual result but just the viewpoint.

Chepstow 4.35 Handicap 16 runners
Stanley Pincombe

BF.png

OddsCh.png

Graph.png

I rate it at a maximum of 40% chance (6/4 - 2.50) It's drifting early doors and my view it will retrace. IMO it's becoming a value B2L but may drift more yet. It's pace history isn't anything special (held up-mid div).

The race itself should be competitive, there are no non runners to affect the market (yet).

[MAGTRADEUK]

One thing I became good at, but not intentionally, is the ability to pick the eventual winner of a NH race, but, I was laying one selection, the amount of times I did that is uncanny. Yet if I was looking to back a winner there is no way I would have made that selection. All in practice mode while learning about the use of the software, needless to say its put me off laying in play. LOL

[arbitrage16]

If I talking about exits etc in a slightly provocative way its just because I think it's important for new people to realise that bets don't just vanish if you do them in pairs. Every 'trading' bet they place is in fact a real bet that runs and is settled individually. It saddens me a bit when I see new in_play players prepared to exit at any price (be it for a green or red), all because that part of the equation was skirted over in trading 101 and they don't even realise a close can be anything but good or at least be no harm.

You probably know anyway that there's a Lilliputian style conflict going on between the nevergreens and the alwaysgreens. I take the middle ground but from the direction this forum steers the new recruits you'd sometimes think there wasn't even a choice to be made.

Hi Shaun, I don't understand this but would like to. Would you be able to explain it in a little more detail please, perhaps with an example? Much obliged.

[arch4672]

If I talking about exits etc in a slightly provocative way its just because I think it's important for new people to realise that bets don't just vanish if you do them in pairs. Every 'trading' bet they place is in fact a real bet that runs and is settled individually. It saddens me a bit when I see new in_play players prepared to exit at any price (be it for a green or red), all because that part of the equation was skirted over in trading 101 and they don't even realise a close can be anything but good or at least be no harm.

You probably know anyway that there's a Lilliputian style conflict going on between the nevergreens and the alwaysgreens. I take the middle ground but from the direction this forum steers the new recruits you'd sometimes think there wasn't even a choice to be made.

Hi Shaun, I don't understand this but would like to. Would you be able to explain it in a little more detail please, perhaps with an example? Much obliged.

Shaun might reply later, but this is how I think of it...

If you were betting on a coin toss, you know the fair odds of a heads would be 2.0. If you could back at 2.1, then over the long term you'd make money as the price of 2.1 is a value bet. If you could lay at 1.9, again you'd make money because it's a value bet.

If you made a back bet of 2.1 and then the price shortened to 2.02 you could lay it at that price and lock in a profit. However if you look at the bets in isolation the lay bet is not a value bet and over time would lose you money, the back bet is the value bet. If you hadn't made the initial back bet of 2.1 there's no way you would place a lay bet of 2.02. If the price shortened to 1.96 it would make sense to place the lay bet, but the initial back bet is irrelevant in making that bet.

Another scenario might be where you place an initial back bet at 1.96 thinking the price might shorten further with a view to then place a lay bet. Say that it did shorten to 1.9 then you'd place your lay bet, lock in profit and all is good. But if you look at the bets separately only one of them is value and in the long term that initial back bet would lose you money, so why bother placing it in the first place?

So when people say they 'trade' rather than value bet, they're actually the same thing. If you're 'trading' you won't make any money unless at least one side of the 'trade' is a value bet.

Trading out a bet and locking in a profit does make some sense in that it can smooth out variance and build up your bank quicker, but over the long term is likely to cost you money. So mathematically it doesn't make sense to just green up for the sake of it, but psychologically it can make sense to give yourself a smoother ride.

Having said that, it's easy to know what the fair odds are for a coin toss, it's a bit harder for horse race with 12 runners. But if you can come up with a fair value you're half way there.

If you have been trading you could analyse your back bets and lay bets separately to see which side is making the money as it's likely that only one side is and the other one is losing.

[ShaunWhite]

Shaun might reply later, but this is how I think of it...

I couldn't have explained it better.

-----

It's never too soon to understand how 10,000 back bets and 10,000 lay bets actually add up to either a profit or loss at the end of the year, no matter how you're placing them. It needn't be front and center everytime you click the mouse but knowing can stop you doing damaging things in the name of looking 'traderly'.

[Geordie]

If you were betting on a coin toss, you know the fair odds of a heads would be 2.0. If you could back at 2.1, then over the long term you'd make money as the price of 2.1 is a value bet. If you could lay at 1.9, again you'd make money because it's a value bet.

If you made a back bet of 2.1 and then the price shortened to 2.02 you could lay it at that price and lock in a profit. However if you look at the bets in isolation the lay bet is not a value bet and over time would lose you money, the back bet is the value bet. If you hadn't made the initial back bet of 2.1 there's no way you would place a lay bet of 2.02. If the price shortened to 1.96 it would make sense to place the lay bet, but the initial back bet is irrelevant in making that bet.

Another scenario might be where you place an initial back bet at 1.96 thinking the price might shorten further with a view to then place a lay bet. Say that it did shorten to 1.9 then you'd place your lay bet, lock in profit and all is good. But if you look at the bets separately only one of them is value and in the long term that initial back bet would lose you money, so why bother placing it in the first place?

So when people say they 'trade' rather than value bet, they're actually the same thing. If you're 'trading' you won't make any money unless at least one side of the 'trade' is a value bet.

Trading out a bet and locking in a profit does make some sense in that it can smooth out variance and build up your bank quicker, but over the long term is likely to cost you money. So mathematically it doesn't make sense to just green up for the sake of it, but psychologically it can make sense to give yourself a smoother ride.

Having said that, it's easy to know what the fair odds are for a coin toss, it's a bit harder for horse race with 12 runners. But if you can come up with a fair value you're half way there.

If you have been trading you could analyse your back bets and lay bets separately to see which side is making the money as it's likely that only one side is and the other one is losing.

Gold, thank you