Incremental staking plans are just another form of chasing losses
Whatever your system.....you still need DISCIPLINE
Discipline is everything in this game.
A lack of discipline in trading is like giving Viagra to a Eunuch.....hopeless
Is little Acorns genuine or a blag!?
- ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
* other ways to automate are availablewearthefoxhat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 8:34 am. There no reason why L2B trades can't work in some form if a bot is crunched together using some of Dallas's shared automation bots.
Not trying to convince anyone, just a POV.
I agree with your comment that L2B in general is possible using something meaningful like money supply and demand, but imo the initial selection process and trick staking of the Acorns strategy is pretty meaningless.
It's interesting though that low liability(*) and rapid recovery through staking are the appeal. The two most irrelevant and misleading things a strategy could offer but oh so appealing to the uninitiated who are trying to buy a profit.
(*) Just because something is a long price it doesn't mean higher liability, because you can stake by liability..... unless you're locked into some pointless staking plan.
I'll be the first to admit I had to look up what 'Eunuch' meant
Trying to drag this thread back on topic.... It looks like the original criteria does not work but the alternate numbers look a bit better, just.
On that basis running the alternates as yearly, then in 6 month blocks yearly looks like this
Just out of curiosity created a Back version of my setup and generated some odds using the same principle and wondered if you want to test them Britguy? Dutching essentially.
On that basis running the alternates as yearly, then in 6 month blocks yearly looks like this
Just out of curiosity created a Back version of my setup and generated some odds using the same principle and wondered if you want to test them Britguy? Dutching essentially.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
- firlandsfarm
- Posts: 2720
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am
I looked at this some years ago and put the criteria across my database using BSP as odds. It didn't work and I put this to the author who retorted that you can't use BSP, you have to use live prices! I asked why not BSP but didn't get a satisfactory answer.Brovashift wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:06 pmAnyone who doesn't know; you basically lay odds-on favs where the 2nd fav is <=6.0 and 3rd fav <=10.0, and the only criteria to check is that the 1st fav is not a BF. Reading up on how often BF win the next race I read it was around 19% of the time, thats my first red flag!
-
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:10 am
- Location: Ballygarvan,Cork Ireland T12D2VR
- Contact:
There are many greater minds than mine on this Forum and most of them seem to gathered here However heres by halfpennyworth on Martingale in General. I agree that Martingale in its original Form does not work-The coin flip or red-black roulette 50-50 version has no chance as a losing sequence is inevitable.
IMO for any variation to work it has to have the following elements. The underlying BAF has to have
(1) A high incidence of winning to Loss
(2) A relatively high win/loss value-amount Ratio
Also you cannot allow the losses to roll up indefinitely without either a sequential cap or a value cap. I have seen myself with the BAF I tested having a 12 loss sequence on the AUS market.Not even Musks bank would sustain that.
IMO you then have to determine by testing for EVERY BAf used if the capped off losses are greater than your cumulative wins. IMO Its that simple. IMO (2) is the most important factor. We all can back a great number at 1.01 and get the high incidence .
Another vital factor is whether you can get on when the stakes roll up. I would think the MAX roll up in any circumstance would be in the order of £3000 but that figure depends on what stake you begin with . A Pre off BAF is the only realistic shout for this to happen and you also need a few minutes to get on. This is counter to the time you need between races to have your stake logged so the logistics may be difficult as regards getting on. 5 Mins between races is ample for the stake calculation and transfer usually. I have not used Martingale yet with real money but believe with the right bank it can work.
I have to grow a BANK for this.
IMO for any variation to work it has to have the following elements. The underlying BAF has to have
(1) A high incidence of winning to Loss
(2) A relatively high win/loss value-amount Ratio
Also you cannot allow the losses to roll up indefinitely without either a sequential cap or a value cap. I have seen myself with the BAF I tested having a 12 loss sequence on the AUS market.Not even Musks bank would sustain that.
IMO you then have to determine by testing for EVERY BAf used if the capped off losses are greater than your cumulative wins. IMO Its that simple. IMO (2) is the most important factor. We all can back a great number at 1.01 and get the high incidence .
Another vital factor is whether you can get on when the stakes roll up. I would think the MAX roll up in any circumstance would be in the order of £3000 but that figure depends on what stake you begin with . A Pre off BAF is the only realistic shout for this to happen and you also need a few minutes to get on. This is counter to the time you need between races to have your stake logged so the logistics may be difficult as regards getting on. 5 Mins between races is ample for the stake calculation and transfer usually. I have not used Martingale yet with real money but believe with the right bank it can work.
I have to grow a BANK for this.
Satire?Dr Ginhog wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 10:20 amThere are many greater minds than mine on this Forum and most of them seem to gathered here However heres by halfpennyworth on Martingale in General. I agree that Martingale in its original Form does not work-The coin flip or red-black roulette 50-50 version has no chance as a losing sequence is inevitable.
IMO for any variation to work it has to have the following elements. The underlying BAF has to have
(1) A high incidence of winning to Loss
(2) A relatively high win/loss value-amount Ratio
Also you cannot allow the losses to roll up indefinitely without either a sequential cap or a value cap. I have seen myself with the BAF I tested having a 12 loss sequence on the AUS market.Not even Musks bank would sustain that.
IMO you then have to determine by testing for EVERY BAf used if the capped off losses are greater than your cumulative wins. IMO Its that simple. IMO (2) is the most important factor. We all can back a great number at 1.01 and get the high incidence .
Another vital factor is whether you can get on when the stakes roll up. I would think the MAX roll up in any circumstance would be in the order of £3000 but that figure depends on what stake you begin with . A Pre off BAF is the only realistic shout for this to happen and you also need a few minutes to get on. This is counter to the time you need between races to have your stake logged so the logistics may be difficult as regards getting on. 5 Mins between races is ample for the stake calculation and transfer usually. I have not used Martingale yet with real money but believe with the right bank it can work.
I have to grow a BANK for this.
-
- Posts: 4327
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:50 pm
Martingale discussions on the forum be like.....
-
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:10 am
- Location: Ballygarvan,Cork Ireland T12D2VR
- Contact:
My purse ? Never carried a Purse ever? Did you mean Wallet?
Your welcome to it Anbel all 100% of it.
As anybody who has read my post knows I have always advocated for DISCIPLINE for others. Unfortunately I have not been sensible in applyiung it to myself. Hence the empty wallet.
Your welcome to it Anbel all 100% of it.
As anybody who has read my post knows I have always advocated for DISCIPLINE for others. Unfortunately I have not been sensible in applyiung it to myself. Hence the empty wallet.