Psychoff Bank Management Example Discussion

[Jukebox]

Unbelievable!

[Kai]

I tried

[JustLukeYou]

Unbelievable!

Thank you for the insightful input. Genius.

[JustLukeYou]

I tried

I can't really see the benefit of Laying, I would still need a lot of money to Lay there not being more than 5 goals.

[Jukebox]

I got a thank you from you for something at least.

[ShaunWhite]

I still can't see what the benefit of Laying is, the liability is still very high.

Back £1000 at 1.1 to win £100 or lose £1000
Lay £100 at 10.0 to win £100 or lose £1000

What's the difference?

[Kai]

OK Luke, have one last picture then. The point is that you should try laying at such low prices, and not backing. Then maybe it wouldn't be "as risky" as you say. If it's still unclear then maybe try a betting forum instead of a trading forum.

[rik]

over under 2,5 much better turnover so if you wanted to scale up eventually, that would be more suited
staking smaller on 2,5 is principally the same to betting under 4,5 and trading out after a couple of goals anyway
think generally putting a percentage on goals to happen in football is easier than pricing up match odds, psychoff doing very well purely betting over/under if i remember right

[rik]

I still can't see what the benefit of Laying is, the liability is still very high.

Back £1000 at 1.1 to win £100 or lose £1000
Lay £100 at 10.0 to win £100 or lose £1000

What's the difference?

lose £900 back 1.1 equals a lay of 11

[Dallas]

I can't think of any situation where i'd ever consider backing at <1.50 in any football or tennis market.

As anyone who reads the tennis threads one of my favourite type of trades is to lay as low as possible and I've picked up many big swings from 1.01 - 1.10 out to 2+
The one thing I always wonder is who on earth is on the other side of this and thought it was a good idea to back at those odds, of course we know 99% of the time it has to be a gambler/mug punter.

That's not to say there is never value in backing at low odds or just laying everything at a low price will work but the risk to reward ratio Kai spoke about earlier makes it a much better proposition

[rik]

a tick at 1.02 almost worth 4 times a tick at 1.98 though, dont think backing low odds is bad value just not as suited to trading

[JustLukeYou]

My main concern with these markets is liquidity. Even I was able to trade for £100 a day how can I tell the liquidity is available in these markets?

At the moment I am doing anything very useful other than practicing. Let's say I traded at £10 and made £2 it is still not useful or making any positive impact.

[Kai]

a tick at 1.02 almost worth 4 times a tick at 1.98 though, dont think backing low odds is bad value just not as suited to trading

It's almost as if you're genuinely trying to make Luke's head explode! Poor guy is confused enough as it is.

[ShaunWhite]

lose £900 back 1.1 equals a lay of 11

I figured that just as I hit send. Then figured it probably wasn't even worth changing it cos he wouldn't read it anyway

[Kafkaesque]

I can't think of any situation where i'd ever consider backing at <1.50 in any football or tennis market.

As anyone who reads the tennis threads one of my favourite type of trades is to lay as low as possible and I've picked up many big swings from 1.01 - 1.10 out to 2+
The one thing I always wonder is who on earth is on the other side of this and thought it was a good idea to back at those odds, of course we know 99% of the time it has to be a gambler/mug punter.

That's not to say there is never value in backing at low odds or just laying everything at a low price will work but the risk to reward ratio Kai spoke about earlier makes it a much better proposition

Someone on a Danish poker forum - and in recent years poker/betting forum - started a thread where he would use BF exchange for a "rocket". Don't know the English terminology, but it's basically betting by starting with a small bank and then reinvesting 100% with every bet, typically on very short prices, until a preset target is reached.

He declared, he would do one bet every day for a year at 1.01 on the exchange, which would turn aprrox. 100 into 2700 in a full year. That would sound appealing to many a newbie/mug punter. I mean who cannot pick out just one "100% sure thing" a day? Which I'm sure 1.01 looks to many. Which I actually think can be done. The larger issue for most would probably be bet selection, to not go hunting any 1.01 anywhere just to get the compounding bet on.

I'd suspect that sort of "fun" would account for a fair bit of what you're taking on.