Akindwurd wrote:You're absolutely right that the stress of risking large stakes can lead to irrational behaviour and that using minimal stakes lets the trader focus on being more objective. "It's only 2 quid" means we don't invest our egos (much) in the outcome. That makes it easier to accept that we were wrong and to get out of a bad trade for a small loss.
However, it can also make it easier to let a losing trade go in-play. It's only 2 quid, after all. Which you seem to be doing quite a lot. Is this rational? We all know what happens when you start letting 200-quid trades go in-play regularly.
No I AM accepting the loss, the IP element on a losing trade would be where all green is invested in the losing runner to MITIGATE that loss, for example leaving me with 5/6 dogs running to 2p profit and just the one with 20-30p in this scenario.
t's a half-way house to accepting a -17p red-up if you will and often allows a poor trade to still end up green,
hence my many loss-free runs of 10-15+ races...
Don't get me wrong, if it's a tuppence or fourpence, I'll happily red-up and move on, but where you've laid at 4s and now that dog (or horse) is under 3s, I often finding a manual BACK bet at those short odds just before the off, for 2p less than the green on the other dogs/horses can be a shrewd way of
negating loss while minimising the liability carried IP. The focus changes to damage limitation and accepting a minimal return if any of the 5/6 dogs do manage to beat the favourite (often the case) which is the whole point of this thread - to explore ways to get loss-free streaks, albeit at small profits and negligible losses when they do occur, which is inevitable in the longer term.
I hope this makes sense and gives some food for thought, I'm only stating what at least seems to work for me, especially on the dogs; clearly we all must make our decisions what to do with potential losses immediately prior to the off.
