Posting P&Ls without context

[Damo]

It's like over the years you've formed this way of speaking without actually speaking, you're trying to remain so impartial your ass crack must be stuffed full of splinters!

I know why you do it, because you don't ever want to be nailed down on, "Peter said to do XYZ, and I lost money" The net result is you just never really say or do anything of any use, it's mildly infuriating!

Each to their own of course, but having watched pretty much all of Peter's videos, I've found he imparts subtle yet valuable insight. I - and I am sure I am not alone in this regard - have a book full of notes and drawings that I made, purely from listening to what he shared. The only thing that disappoints me, is that he doesn't post enough videos

[Goobs]

And how much money have you made from all those nuggets of wisdom he's given you.....?

[csewell1987]

In the pit, the person on the other side of your trade was your enemy, it's the only way you can take their money. When you were lifting the offer and you could see panic in their eyes you knew you were on the right side of the market, none of this hiding behing a keyboard BS.

If you and a select few are making the "millions" you claim, the majority of users on Betfair should hate you, as you are the group taking their money!

I know the ecosystem very well. The least likely scenario is traders consistently winning from other traders, and even less so Bet Angel users winning from other Bet Angel users. It can happen of course, but it’s not how the market mainly functions.

In practice, API users tend to outperform website users, and website users tend to do better than phone users. Traders generally outperform punters because they avoid paying the spread and operate with lower effective costs.

What’s actually happening is that traders provide liquidity to traditional punters. In return, they earn a share of the spread between the best available back and lay prices. That’s the core economic exchange, not some zero sum trader versus trader battle.

The “millions” isn’t a claim, it’s an observable outcome. I’ve personally seen many users accumulate genuinely life changing sums over time.

From the earlier posts, it’s also not clear what you were actually doing in the markets or why, which makes it difficult for anyone to suggest meaningful corrective action.

I understand how frustrating it is when things don’t work out, but it’s worth being careful not to let that frustration turn into a distorted view of how the market actually operates.

Interesting that. I can certainly see it when looking at the supreme at cheltenham for instance. Where you have bookies dumping liabilities, high punter engagement, probably more traders as well. However, surely the 10.29 at Harlow must put trader against trader as pretty much a certainty?

[jamesedwards]

In the pit, the person on the other side of your trade was your enemy, it's the only way you can take their money. When you were lifting the offer and you could see panic in their eyes you knew you were on the right side of the market, none of this hiding behing a keyboard BS.

If you and a select few are making the "millions" you claim, the majority of users on Betfair should hate you, as you are the group taking their money!

I know the ecosystem very well. The least likely scenario is traders consistently winning from other traders, and even less so Bet Angel users winning from other Bet Angel users. It can happen of course, but it’s not how the market mainly functions.

In practice, API users tend to outperform website users, and website users tend to do better than phone users. Traders generally outperform punters because they avoid paying the spread and operate with lower effective costs.

What’s actually happening is that traders provide liquidity to traditional punters. In return, they earn a share of the spread between the best available back and lay prices. That’s the core economic exchange, not some zero sum trader versus trader battle.

The “millions” isn’t a claim, it’s an observable outcome. I’ve personally seen many users accumulate genuinely life changing sums over time.

From the earlier posts, it’s also not clear what you were actually doing in the markets or why, which makes it difficult for anyone to suggest meaningful corrective action.

I understand how frustrating it is when things don’t work out, but it’s worth being careful not to let that frustration turn into a distorted view of how the market actually operates.

Interesting that. I can certainly see it when looking at the supreme at cheltenham for instance. Where you have bookies dumping liabilities, high punter engagement, probably more traders as well. However, surely the 10.29 at Harlow must put trader against trader as pretty much a certainty?

Successful traders usually (not always) will be offering rather then taking. Two parties only offering can never match each other, so based on that principle traders are less likely to be matching each other's bets whatever the market.

[csewell1987]

I know the ecosystem very well. The least likely scenario is traders consistently winning from other traders, and even less so Bet Angel users winning from other Bet Angel users. It can happen of course, but it’s not how the market mainly functions.

In practice, API users tend to outperform website users, and website users tend to do better than phone users. Traders generally outperform punters because they avoid paying the spread and operate with lower effective costs.

What’s actually happening is that traders provide liquidity to traditional punters. In return, they earn a share of the spread between the best available back and lay prices. That’s the core economic exchange, not some zero sum trader versus trader battle.

The “millions” isn’t a claim, it’s an observable outcome. I’ve personally seen many users accumulate genuinely life changing sums over time.

From the earlier posts, it’s also not clear what you were actually doing in the markets or why, which makes it difficult for anyone to suggest meaningful corrective action.

I understand how frustrating it is when things don’t work out, but it’s worth being careful not to let that frustration turn into a distorted view of how the market actually operates.

Interesting that. I can certainly see it when looking at the supreme at cheltenham for instance. Where you have bookies dumping liabilities, high punter engagement, probably more traders as well. However, surely the 10.29 at Harlow must put trader against trader as pretty much a certainty?

Successful traders usually (not always) will be offering rather then taking. Two parties only offering can never match each other, so based on that principle traders are less likely to be matching each other's bets whatever the market.

So the majority offer (lay) as an entry into market then hedge out (back) to close out the trade? The act of closing out requires money on the back side though so wouldn't the closer be matching with a trader whos put the money up? Or are we saying a lot arent now actually trading/hedging at all?

[Goobs]

Interesting that. I can certainly see it when looking at the supreme at cheltenham for instance. Where you have bookies dumping liabilities, high punter engagement, probably more traders as well. However, surely the 10.29 at Harlow must put trader against trader as pretty much a certainty?

Exactly this, just like playing poker, spend all day battling regs or play at 11pm on a Friday and pick off all the drunk fish...

[csewell1987]

Interesting that. I can certainly see it when looking at the supreme at cheltenham for instance. Where you have bookies dumping liabilities, high punter engagement, probably more traders as well. However, surely the 10.29 at Harlow must put trader against trader as pretty much a certainty?

Exactly this, just like playing poker, spend all day battling regs or play at 11pm on a Friday and pick off all the drunk fish...

I guess the idea is really up the anti when the drunk fish are in town then haha. Hopefully it was guinness and not guinness 0...

[csewell1987]

In all seriousness though, I do fail to see how it cant be trader vs trader a lot more regularly at these lesser events where there is little to no money in the market. Around the 2 minute mark, when bots are firing it feels like the market has gone away from human activity bar the shrewdies who have done it years.

[jamesedwards]

Interesting that. I can certainly see it when looking at the supreme at cheltenham for instance. Where you have bookies dumping liabilities, high punter engagement, probably more traders as well. However, surely the 10.29 at Harlow must put trader against trader as pretty much a certainty?

Successful traders usually (not always) will be offering rather then taking. Two parties only offering can never match each other, so based on that principle traders are less likely to be matching each other's bets whatever the market.

So the majority offer (lay) as an entry into market then hedge out (back) to close out the trade? The act of closing out requires money on the back side though so wouldn't the closer be matching with a trader whos put the money up? Or are we saying a lot arent now actually trading/hedging at all?

I'm not sure the majority of successful traders close out every trade. Personally I treat each trade on it's own merit. If you blindly green up then in the long run you're trading off some expected value in return for a green book. I don't green up very often and if I do I do it using reverse price rather than giving away value.

[csewell1987]

Successful traders usually (not always) will be offering rather then taking. Two parties only offering can never match each other, so based on that principle traders are less likely to be matching each other's bets whatever the market.

So the majority offer (lay) as an entry into market then hedge out (back) to close out the trade? The act of closing out requires money on the back side though so wouldn't the closer be matching with a trader whos put the money up? Or are we saying a lot arent now actually trading/hedging at all?

I'm not sure the majority of successful traders close out every trade. Personally I treat each trade on it's own merit. If you blindly green up then in the long run you're trading off some expected value in return for a green book. I don't green up very often and if I do I do it using reverse price rather than giving away value.

I appreciate you dont want to give too much away but that must be incredibly difficult as I know you are involved in running on horses. Do you set acceptable prices as the race develops and then get involved once you have enough of an opinion with whatever exceeds/doesnt your price? Also, do you only get involved at a certain odds range?

[Euler]

In all seriousness though, I do fail to see how it cant be trader vs trader a lot more regularly at these lesser events where there is little to no money in the market. Around the 2 minute mark, when bots are firing it feels like the market has gone away from human activity bar the shrewdies who have done it years.

As with a lot of things, it depends.

But as a general rule of thumb the higher quality event the stronger the betting market will be. So if you sort the day's racing by prize money you will get a good view on where the strongest betting heats are.

In the winter you can get very poor quality all weather racing with low prize money and they will have the least amount of interest from a betting or trading perspective. Therefore, they will be more volatile. Just remove them from your trading list.

[jamesedwards]

So the majority offer (lay) as an entry into market then hedge out (back) to close out the trade? The act of closing out requires money on the back side though so wouldn't the closer be matching with a trader whos put the money up? Or are we saying a lot arent now actually trading/hedging at all?

I'm not sure the majority of successful traders close out every trade. Personally I treat each trade on it's own merit. If you blindly green up then in the long run you're trading off some expected value in return for a green book. I don't green up very often and if I do I do it using reverse price rather than giving away value.

I appreciate you dont want to give too much away but that must be incredibly difficult as I know you are involved in running on horses. Do you set acceptable prices as the race develops and then get involved once you have enough of an opinion with whatever exceeds/doesnt your price? Also, do you only get involved at a certain odds range?

I leverage multiple opportunities at different stages of the race. I started out by mastering one strategy, then slowly overlaid more one-by-one over time. But they all come down to the same principle of treating every trade on it's own merit. I only click when I perceive value, and in this game value usually (not always) comes from offering not taking. Taking not only puts you on the wrong side of the spread, but also handicaps you by the one-sec betting delay. Just my view, others may well differ.