Apologies for raising this issue again, I realise it’s been brought up before, but there didn’t seem to be an explanation as to why this feature isn’t implemented. I’ve posted in the nubs thread rather than the suggestions, as presumably there’s a very good reason for its absence.
The manual plays pretty fast and loose with maths in the section devoted to this, e.g. “When we say an increment of 0.01 we are saying that the odds would move from 1.78 to 1.79, or a percentage move of 1%”. Consequently, not only is there no built-in greening function applied to auto tick size staking, but the values are all rounded down to the nearest asymmetrical price point (i.e 2, 3, 4, 6, 10) with no scaling in between.
Are the devs trying to tell us that this feature is only there to help prevent nubs from accidentally blowing their banks and is not intended for grown up trading?
Do most traders set their stake sizes manually for each event? And/or just set it at 20/50/100/500 or whatever and button mash?
Perhaps I’m just being anally retentive in wanting a single click, scalable 1-tick greened up staking plan available on the ladder tab and should stick to excel.
Auto tick size with greening
Perhaps I can rephrase my question, as I really would welcome some advice on this point.
There would be general agreement that accurately managing risk is a key aspect of trading. Unlike pure punting, the liability or potential payoff of a trading position is directly related to the greened/reddened-up tick size immediately adjacent to that position. This is of course governed in turn by the stake size, but it is the tick size we are trying to control: the stake is simply the tool we have for controlling this.
I am not interested here in strategies such as entry/exit points, WoM, money matched and so on. I am simply interested in how a given tick size is achieved from a purely mechanical perspective.
So, are most traders content to focus on getting a target amount of money matched (with at the back of their minds an approximate awareness of the liabilities involved) and accepting that tick size will be whatever it will be? Presumably some intuitive calculation is made that a back stake of £100 at 3.75 is mathematically slightly more risky than a back stake at 3.85 but much less risky than one at 4.
If not, what is the most sensible way to explicitly control tick size? Constantly readjusting the stake size in the back and lay boxes (with the help of lots of sticky notes listing the appropriate values)? Leaving a fixed but relatively low stake size in the back and lay boxes and spamming the appropriate number of times (with the help of the same list of sticky notes)? Excel? The problem with the first two methods is that they are slow and cumbersome, making it difficult to keep up with a rapidly changing market. The problem with Excel is that it feels like a work-around. Is there some other way that I’m missing?
There would be general agreement that accurately managing risk is a key aspect of trading. Unlike pure punting, the liability or potential payoff of a trading position is directly related to the greened/reddened-up tick size immediately adjacent to that position. This is of course governed in turn by the stake size, but it is the tick size we are trying to control: the stake is simply the tool we have for controlling this.
I am not interested here in strategies such as entry/exit points, WoM, money matched and so on. I am simply interested in how a given tick size is achieved from a purely mechanical perspective.
So, are most traders content to focus on getting a target amount of money matched (with at the back of their minds an approximate awareness of the liabilities involved) and accepting that tick size will be whatever it will be? Presumably some intuitive calculation is made that a back stake of £100 at 3.75 is mathematically slightly more risky than a back stake at 3.85 but much less risky than one at 4.
If not, what is the most sensible way to explicitly control tick size? Constantly readjusting the stake size in the back and lay boxes (with the help of lots of sticky notes listing the appropriate values)? Leaving a fixed but relatively low stake size in the back and lay boxes and spamming the appropriate number of times (with the help of the same list of sticky notes)? Excel? The problem with the first two methods is that they are slow and cumbersome, making it difficult to keep up with a rapidly changing market. The problem with Excel is that it feels like a work-around. Is there some other way that I’m missing?