Psychoff Bank Management Example Discussion

[JustLukeYou]

Hi,

So do any brave souls want to share their opinion. Yesterday (Saturday) I traded 6 matches. On one match I traded out for a 20% loss but made 20% on the other 5 so ended the day with a profit and increased my bank by 4% which is way about the target of 0.6% (20% of 3% of the bank) but towards the end of the day I hit a brick wall and still can't get over it today.

I traded the Zenit match and made a 20% loss but made that back on Celtic but I just can't see any clear cut opportunities like I was yesterday morning. Does anyone else hit a brick wall at the end of Saturday and if so how do you deal with it?

That is not hitting a brick wall. To me, hitting a brick wall is trading for several days, possibly 20-30 markets and not making much or any profit. You need a lot of patience to be a trader. Six markets!

Yeah took a break and made a profit from Liverpool and PSG matches so up today. Sometimes they are just so many matches on.

[JustLukeYou]

Hi,

In terms of bank management I am still lost tbh. Tonight was a very typical trading experience. I have made 6 trades and made a profit on all of them. Typically I make around 7% profit. To make a total of £100 from tonight I would need around £1,450. If that was 3% of my bank I would need £47,600. If I started with £100 and added 5% a week it would take 128 weeks to get to that point. Does anyone have any suggestions, how did you build your bank to the point where you stopped growing it and just traded with the bank and lived off the profits?

[ShaunWhite]

Typically I make around 7% profit. To make a total of £100 from tonight I would need around £1,450. If that was 3% of my bank I would need £47,600. If I started with £100 and added 5% a week it would take 128 weeks to get to that point.

Risking 3% of your bank doesn't mean staking 3% of your bank. You can stake 50% of your bank if you want, so long as your stop loss is at 3%. Gamblers lose all of their stake, traders lose the amount of their stake they choose. Where did you read that you should only stake 3% of your bank?

[rik]

you seem to be winning 6 from 7 markets every day, how are you still building your bank, time to live of profits!!

[JustLukeYou]

you seem to be winning 6 from 7 markets every day, how are you still building your bank, time to live of profits!!

Hi,

Yes my I have made around 20% loss of 3 bets and broke even one 1 out of 35 so the strike rate is high but to make a good income from it I need to stake a lot. I can see how I can make £100+ a day but it requires approx. £1500 to stake each day.

[JustLukeYou]

Typically I make around 7% profit. To make a total of £100 from tonight I would need around £1,450. If that was 3% of my bank I would need £47,600. If I started with £100 and added 5% a week it would take 128 weeks to get to that point.

Risking 3% of your bank doesn't mean staking 3% of your bank. You can stake 50% of your bank if you want, so long as your stop loss is at 3%. Gamblers lose all of their stake, traders lose the amount of their stake they choose. Where did you read that you should only stake 3% of your bank?

Hi,

I read an interview with Psychoff where he says he stakes around 3% of his bank, I am looking into setting up automated stop losses but I need time to download BetAngel and test it. But making progress with it. What stop loss system do you use?

[Kai]

Staking and risking is not the same thing for a trader Luke, you could use a stake of 100 but risk a lot less than that.

I can see how I can make £100+ a day but it requires approx. £1500 to stake each day.

And where's the problem with that? At what prices are you backing exactly? What's the strike rate % of this small sample of 35 trades/bets?

If you want to make 100+ a day with small stakes you will have to go for an approach with a lower hitrate.

[rik]

what you want to look at is your win/loss ratio
strike rate alone is useles stat as its dependent on odds
also look at the longer term, 35 markets is nothing
if you can consistently win more than 110 for every 100 you lose with prediction/stats based betting/trading as it seems you are, you are very good

[JustLukeYou]

I am typically backing Under 5 or 6 goals or 1 more goal to be scored. Yesterday I Under 6 goals and then under 5 goals on the same match and 1 more goal in the Man City match. Typically they are low odds, around 1.1.

If I can hit 1 or 2 each day with £1,000 stakes that would be great but currently I am just dealing with pennies. I could try it but it as big risk unless I built a sizeable bank up.

[Derek27]

I've known a lot of people to expand too quickly but I've never encountered anyone even talking about moving from 5 pence to £1000 stakes!

[Kai]

I am typically backing Under 5 or 6 goals or 1 more goal to be scored. Yesterday I Under 6 goals and then under 5 goals on the same match and 1 more goal in the Man City match. Typically they are low odds, around 1.1.

If I can hit 1 or 2 each day with £1,000 stakes that would be great but currently I am just dealing with pennies. I could try it but it as big risk unless I built a sizeable bank up.

And once you back at 1.10 do you even exit or do you let the bet run until the end of the match?

I don't for the life of me know why someone would lay odds of 10. I don't understand how that can work long term.

Do you remember saying this last week? That was your comment after seeing my 2014 CS laying strategy from prices of 4 to 10.

So you're telling me that this below strategy of yours is perfectly fine.



So how was my old strategy from below any different (or worse) than yours above? Bear in mind that I consider this the worst strategy that I ever used like I've explained previously.



Should I state the obvious or do you want to have a go at it yourself?

[Derek27]

And once you back at 1.10 do you even exit or do you let the bet run until the end of the match?

If you back 10 pence at 1.1 you've got a nothing to lose lay at 1.04, unless Smarkets use a different rounding-off algorithm.

[JustLukeYou]

I am typically backing Under 5 or 6 goals or 1 more goal to be scored. Yesterday I Under 6 goals and then under 5 goals on the same match and 1 more goal in the Man City match. Typically they are low odds, around 1.1.

If I can hit 1 or 2 each day with £1,000 stakes that would be great but currently I am just dealing with pennies. I could try it but it as big risk unless I built a sizeable bank up.

And once you back at 1.10 do you even exit or do you let the bet run until the end of the match?

I don't for the life of me know why someone would lay odds of 10. I don't understand how that can work long term.

Do you remember saying this last week? That was your comment after seeing my 2014 CS laying strategy from prices of 4 to 10.

So you're telling me that this below strategy of yours is perfectly fine.



So how was my old strategy from below any different (or worse) than yours above? Bear in mind that I consider this the worst strategy that I ever used like I've explained previously.



Should I state the obvious or do you want to have a go at it yourself?

Yes you are right Kai, I tend to go with what I see. For example, there was a match in Germany last night were it was raining heavily which was hampering the play but Under 5.5 goals looked good and it ended 1-1

I have traded out for a loss of 20% on 3 occasions and traded out immediately on 1 occasions. Even though Zenit did go onto score another goal.

In terms of your screenshots I am looking at Liverpool v Chelsea tonight. To Lay Over 6.5 goals is 19.5 but to back Under is 1.04.

[Kai]

Yes you are right Kai, I tend to go with what I see.

But do you see that by backing at 1.10 you're practically laying at 10? You're indirectly doing the very thing you said that you would never do?

Are you sure you want to trade like this? By backing around 1.10 there are only around 10 ticks max to be won, and so many more ticks above 1.10 that you can potentially lose. Because some would say that this is not a good risk/reward ratio (like rik did a few posts ago), no matter what value you find.

It would take you forever to pull together a large enough sample of trades to get out of the penny zone (at the 30 trades per month rate), and even then you already know that you won't have the stomach to go through with this type of approach even if you did find some value somewhere.

I told you weeks ago that you still haven't discovered laying in general, especially at lower odds, that is the opposite approach much more suited to your risk averse mentality. But it won't be as easy as predicting stuff to happen when it's not priced at 1.10 or 1.04 like you've been doing so far

[JustLukeYou]

Yes you are right Kai, I tend to go with what I see.

But do you see that by backing at 1.10 you're practically laying at 10? You're indirectly doing the very thing you said that you would never do?

Are you sure you want to trade like this? By backing around 1.10 there are only around 10 ticks max to be won, and so many more ticks above 1.10 that you can potentially lose. Because some would say that this is not a good risk/reward ratio (like rik did a few posts ago), no matter what value you find.

It would take you forever to pull together a large enough sample of trades to get out of the penny zone (at the 30 trades per month rate), and even then you already know that you won't have the stomach to go through with this type of approach even if you did find some value somewhere.

I told you weeks ago that you still haven't discovered laying in general, especially at lower odds, that is the opposite approach much more suited to your risk averse mentality. But it won't be as easy as predicting stuff to happen when it's not priced at 1.10 or 1.04 like you've been doing so far

Hi,

Yes it will take me a long time to grow from pennies but at the moment I am practicing. I could grab £1,000 and attempt to built that up but that is very risky.

I still can't see what the benefit of Laying is, the liability is still very high. I am staggered as they were a Portuguese match on Monday with a limit of £212,000 to back Under 5.5 goals. I don't understand how there was so much liquidity.