When you are pre race trading and you get it wrong like we all do from time to time, what is the correct action to take
a) Let the race run (if the liability you face is in line with your Bankroll)
b)Hedge the loss across the entire field
A seems more of a gamble, but good if the traded horse doesnt win
What are your thoughts
Question When you get it wrong
if your pre race trading; pre race being the operative words, you without exception red up.
if you cut it too fine and go inplay you get out straight away. Your strategy is not to go inplay or risk going inplay by cutting it to fine. Hence as soon as you over cook it, you get out. Not to dissimilar to allowing a trade to move to far away from you, you cut out (scratch) straight away.
Nothing wrong with trading inplay if that is your strategy, plenty wrong if your strategy is to trade pre-race – lack/slip of discipline.
if you cut it too fine and go inplay you get out straight away. Your strategy is not to go inplay or risk going inplay by cutting it to fine. Hence as soon as you over cook it, you get out. Not to dissimilar to allowing a trade to move to far away from you, you cut out (scratch) straight away.
Nothing wrong with trading inplay if that is your strategy, plenty wrong if your strategy is to trade pre-race – lack/slip of discipline.
This is fine if the horse does not win the race, but like LT said if they do win it is the quickest way to the poorhouse, yes when you red up you are losing money but in the Forex they say at least you know you are losing a smaller percentage. Its a difficult one i split my bankroll by 50 and i mostly trade between 3.0-4.0 so therefore i only can allow that trade to go 4 ticks against me. I think the red up is the safest option as your next trade maybe alot more than you took a loss on, tradeing as they say is about MANAGING risk with a open £100 on the fact of hope that is a GAMBLEsweetybt wrote:I have no proof but I would say the correct answer is.
"a) Let the race run (if the liability you face is in line with your Bankroll)"
Well you did say if the liability you face is in line with your Bankroll.
You have to take many factors into consideration when deciding to let money go in-play but I do it every day.
Letting bets run in-play is great for generating betfair points, therfore reducing the commission you pay on your winning trades and reducing any due premium charge.
Redding up is boring
You have to take many factors into consideration when deciding to let money go in-play but I do it every day.
Letting bets run in-play is great for generating betfair points, therfore reducing the commission you pay on your winning trades and reducing any due premium charge.
Redding up is boring
A, if you take the liability in play, this is how it will go, you may get away with it a few times but inevitable you just need that 1 race to go against you and your bank is gone. Always red up , its better for the bank and better for your confidence.
Post by sweetybt » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:13 pm
you will get away with it exactly in relation to the horse's chance of winning.
nothing more nothing less.
with all due respect I would have to disagree with the above.
If you’re going to trade pre race, then you will come unstuck relatively quickly if you let trades slip in play.
If you’re going to let trades go in play, then you may as well gamble.
If you’re going to gamble, then gamble properly. Stick your head in the bible for as many hours as it needs i.e. study form. Stake accordingly etc, attempt to get a price higher than SP if backing, and lower if laying.
It’s quite stupid to allow a trade to become a gamble. Gambling and trading are completely different disciplines.
I believe it is a viable strategy to let trades go in-play when you believe the current pre-race price does not represent value after a bit of panic driven market noise.
If you wish to accept the only available odds in these situations that is is your choice.
If you wish to accept the only available odds in these situations that is is your choice.
Actually it doesn't matter which option you choose as the resulting loss over a series of bets will be exactly the same. However it does raise several questions about discipline and tight management of ones bank.
I rather suspect that the original question conceals a hidden truth and that is that the anticipated loss requires some other action because it falls outside the profit/loss trade ratio ie the anticipated loss far exceeds the average profit per race. If it was an "expected" loss there was no need to ask the question; just red up and move on to the next race.
Instead of looking for remedial action for a mistake (and we do all make them), perhaps what is required is more discipline in the balancing of risk/reward ie cutting trades before they becomes a concern. By allowing yourself as a trader to "get off the hook" with a gamble you are failing to examine how you got ON the hook in the first place.
I rather suspect that the original question conceals a hidden truth and that is that the anticipated loss requires some other action because it falls outside the profit/loss trade ratio ie the anticipated loss far exceeds the average profit per race. If it was an "expected" loss there was no need to ask the question; just red up and move on to the next race.
Instead of looking for remedial action for a mistake (and we do all make them), perhaps what is required is more discipline in the balancing of risk/reward ie cutting trades before they becomes a concern. By allowing yourself as a trader to "get off the hook" with a gamble you are failing to examine how you got ON the hook in the first place.
-
Irish Rover
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:33 am
I have to disagree with this.James1st wrote:Actually it doesn't matter which option you choose as the resulting loss over a series of bets will be exactly the same.
Surely option A will cost you more in the long run as you have to pay commission on you're winning bets. Unless you pay the premium charge option A will cost more.
On you're losing bets you will still end up paying back the total red amount you would of had with option B.
Sean.
If you let trades go in-play that you didn't plan on, you will be amazed how often it goes against you and how serious the damage can be.
The difference here is strategy. If you are planning on going in-play, you need to do your research and adjust your trading focus accordingly to ensure your open order is the one you wanted.
If you aren't planning on going in-play then don't - ever. If it happens by mistake, trade out immediately, even if it is for a loss. Then don't watch the rest of the race.
The difference here is strategy. If you are planning on going in-play, you need to do your research and adjust your trading focus accordingly to ensure your open order is the one you wanted.
If you aren't planning on going in-play then don't - ever. If it happens by mistake, trade out immediately, even if it is for a loss. Then don't watch the rest of the race.
Have to agree with grigsy on this one. I tend to use the majority of my bank when I trade, if I go in play I’m gambling with my bank. Mixing trading and unplanned in play running is like backing all odds on horses, you will win a little on the ones that go in, but the losers will hurt. This has never been a profitable strategy for gamblers, as I was one for many years. I never go in play (not now anyway) and if it happens by accident I get out fast, sometimes with a profit.
-
spreadbetting
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
You could argue that by closing out in option B you're likely to be crossing spread and worsening your oddsIrish Rover wrote: On you're losing bets you will still end up paying back the total red amount you would of had with option B.
Sean.
