Capital Portfolio Risk verses trade risk

We were all new to Bet Angel once. Ask any question you like here and fellow forum members promise not to laugh. Betfair trading made simple.
Post Reply
Alpha322
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:45 pm

I am aiming this at traders Euler, James 1st Peter le, Ferru and Mugsgame and some of the other experienced traders on here. I have been reading a few forums re this subject and many differ from each other. If they are true in what they say I would say sports traders take the biggest risk when opening positions . Those trading Forex Mostly say your capital portfolio should be exposed no more than 10% and your trade risk should be 1%-2% depending on your strike rate level. That means if you have a bank of say £2000 your position on a odds on favourite would be £200. Is this right :shock: if so you would profit pittents. The only way to make something decent would be to increase the capital then. A lot of sports traders (Pre Race trading) risk say 25-40% but isn’t this kinda real risky for the following facts
a) Betfair API going down or even the whole site
b) PC Crash
I feel portfolio risk is each to their own really about taking on risk, but me personally my trade risk is always 1% of the portfolio but reseved mixed feelings about the capital portfolio risk, but I never use 99% on a position some of us do :shock: . Could it be that because forex traders use a much bigger portfolio than a sports trader that the Total risk figure recommended is 10%
Anyone shed some light on this risky topic
User avatar
Frogmella
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 2:44 pm

Here's a potentially controversial view from a novice Betfair trader of only one month standing (15 years and ongoing in financials).

Money management is for losers! It's just a way to enable you to lose for even longer. It's death by a thousand cuts.

By trading at 2% of his account a trader is saying to himself that he fears that there is a possibility that he will lose 50 times in a row and with that kind of psychology he'll probably find a way to make it happen. I usually find that this kind of money advice is promoted by people selling money-making systems that don't want to get sued by losing clients. Or by middle men hoping to milk their customers by keeping them in the game for as long as possible.

In any speculative investment anything is possible even 50 straight losses but how many consequtive losses could you really stand, even at 2%, and still carry on. Your subconscious would probably lock your mouse button finger way before 50, you probably wouldn't be able to go near the markets because of the fear of loss, you would probably tell yourself that you're just re-evaluating your strategy. (It happened to me in the days when you had to phone in your order to a broker to place a financial trade, my subconscious just paralysed my telephone arm after a series of losses, it took me a year to recover).

Losses are just a cost of doing business, like paying rent on a shop. The trouble with this business is that you can do everything right and still lose and that is something our brains find very difficult to handle. We are beings that learn from cause and effect and reliable repetition of events and when that doesn't work we are in a world of pain and indecision. This is what makes 95% of traders fail, its nothing to do with systems or money management.

If a trader can't shrug off a loss and get on with the next trade he's in the wrong business. If he can't afford to lose he's in the wrong business. If losing hurts at all, he's in the wrong business. No type of speculative trading is for poor people trying desperately to supplement their income. The psychological pressures are hard enough to cope with even when the cash doesn't matter.

That doesn't mean you don't try to contain your losses, you just use some common sense and not a rigid formula.

In odds trading surely the idea is to complete the cycle and have no money invested in the market at all by the time it starts so the only loss should be when a trade goes against you which you can either hedge before the off or take it in-running if you dare.

I am still trading small stakes from a small account while I find my feet but I will still put it "all in" several time a day, fully intending to take it all out again before the off.

I expect I will continue to do so as my account either grows or I give it up. Obviously there might come a point when the bets would be too large to get quickly matched.

Apart from always trading with a stop and a limit(offset) there is nothing practical you can do if the Betfair server goes off line its just another cost of doing business. If you trade big stakes you should probably have a standby system with a mobile internet connection, as a back up in case your landline internet goes down.

Let the debate begin. ;)
User avatar
Euler
Posts: 26436
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:39 pm

I tend to keep my bank relatively tight as it doesn't make sense to leave too much in there. So I tend to utilise very high %'s of my bank.

Even if there were a crash of one sort or another it's unlikley my entire bank would go pop. That fact aside I can top it up again.

When trading succesfully you will earn very high % returns on captial simply down the large number of events taking place. Any +ve value multiplied by a large number will produce big % returns.

There are upper limits to the amount you can lose, so as long as you know that is you can work out the worst losing run and maximise use of your captial to that value. Aside from crashes etc. the real risk to your capital, if you trade properly, should be small %'s +ve or -ve.
Alpha322
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:45 pm

Frogmella wrote:Here's a potentially controversial view from a novice Betfair trader of only one month standing (15 years and ongoing in financials).
Sir Frogmella, for someone who has been trading sports for one month you come up with some very top class points. I enjoyed reading your post it makes so much sence, i risk 1% of my whole portfollio (that includes what i leave in the bank, i leave about say 1/4 of it in Betfair, but i have always thought that how can one get 50 hits in a row or in my case 100, but once again good post
Alpha322
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:45 pm

Euler wrote:I tend to keep my bank relatively tight as it doesn't make sense to leave too much in there. So I tend to utilise very high %'s of my bank.

Even if there were a crash of one sort or another it's unlikley my entire bank would go pop. That fact aside I can top it up again.
Cheers Euler for your thoughts, i do simmular, but i must say it is not the losing that bothers me it is Betfair,s crashes we have to put up with, when i trade odds on favourites i drip the trade as at these prices is my maximum percentage of the bank that i use :roll:
User avatar
Euler
Posts: 26436
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:39 pm

It works both ways, sometimes you get an unexpected massive bonus as well.
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

Frogmella wrote: Money management is for losers! It's just a way to enable you to lose for even longer. It's death by a thousand cuts.
How is it death by a thousand cuts? If you have a tiny bank then you can grow it very quickly with conservative staking if you have an edge. If you don't have an edge, you'll lose money, but you'll lose money by whatever method you use.
Frogmella wrote:By trading at 2% of his account a trader is saying to himself that he fears that there is a possibility that he will lose 50 times in a row and with that kind of psychology he'll probably find a way to make it happen.
No financial trader would risk more than 2% per trade. Do you know something they don't?

BTW, you don't need 50 losses in a row to end up in a game over situation. And don't forget that big downdowns, caused by over-aggressive staking, can take a while to recover from.
Frogmella wrote:I usually find that this kind of money advice is promoted by people selling money-making systems that don't want to get sued by losing clients.
It's also used by Wall St firms who don't want to explain to mafia boss clients why their $10 million investment is now worth just $1 million...
Frogmella wrote:Losses are just a cost of doing business, like paying rent on a shop.
And grass is green... :)

Jeff
User avatar
Frogmella
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 2:44 pm

Ferru123 wrote:
Frogmella wrote: Money management is for losers! It's just a way to enable you to lose for even longer. It's death by a thousand cuts.
How is it death by a thousand cuts? If you have a tiny bank then you can grow it very quickly with conservative staking if you have an edge. If you don't have an edge, you'll lose money, but you'll lose money by whatever method you use.
Frogmella wrote:By trading at 2% of his account a trader is saying to himself that he fears that there is a possibility that he will lose 50 times in a row and with that kind of psychology he'll probably find a way to make it happen.
No financial trader would risk more than 2% per trade. Do you know something they don't?

BTW, you don't need 50 losses in a row to end up in a game over situation. And don't forget that big downdowns, caused by over-aggressive staking, can take a while to recover from.
Frogmella wrote:I usually find that this kind of money advice is promoted by people selling money-making systems that don't want to get sued by losing clients.
It's also used by Wall St firms who don't want to explain to mafia boss clients why their $10 million investment is now worth just $1 million...
Frogmella wrote:Losses are just a cost of doing business, like paying rent on a shop.
And grass is green... :)

Jeff
I've been, and still am, trading financials, daily since 1997, so I do know a thing or two about it.

The only people that need tight money management are losers. Winners never need it and even with "money management" the losers will still lose all their money. They just spend a very long time losing it.

Scared money never wins. Scared traders always take their profit too early for fear of losing it so their losses are always bigger than their wins. I suspect its the same in this game too.

That doesn't mean you don't control your positions, that would be even more stupid, but you don't waste good opportunities by sticking to rigid money management schemes either.

To suggest a newbie with a small bank, say £100 should never risk more than 2% is just plain daft, you have to speculate to accumulate and you can't accumulate very much with only £2.

You can either deposit a few grand with the intention of only actually using 2% of it or you can deposit a few hundred and put it all to use, while putting the balance in your building society to earn some exciting rates of interest.
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

Frogmella wrote: The only people that need tight money management are losers.
You realise you are describing as losers some of the most successful financial traders in history?

Jeff
User avatar
Frogmella
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 2:44 pm

So you think that when Soros was shorting the pound and bouncing GB out of the exchange rate mechanism he was all the while wringing his hands and worrying about investing more than 2%?

I think not.
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

I realise that is a rhetorical question, but quite possibly 'Yes' (if he was pyramiding and using stops to minimise his exposure should the market have suddenly turned).

With respect, it sounds incredibly arrogant to describe as losers anyone who risks only 2% of their bank per trade. I wonder what the billionaire traders who have built up fortunes using precisely such strategies would think of your position...

Jeff
PeterLe
Posts: 3726
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:19 pm

Frogmella
if you have been trading financials since 1997 I assume that you have been successful so far...
I'm just curious to know how you have found trading betfair in comparison; are they many similarities and is this easier
Regards
Peter
User avatar
Frogmella
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 2:44 pm

Ferru123 wrote:I realise that is a rhetorical question, but quite possibly 'Yes' (if he was pyramiding and using stops to minimise his exposure should the market have suddenly turned).

With respect, it sounds incredibly arrogant to describe as losers anyone who risks only 2% of their bank per trade. I wonder what the billionaire traders who have built up fortunes using precisely such strategies would think of your position...

Jeff
I'm sorry you think me arrogant, we'll just have to agree to differ on this point.
User avatar
Frogmella
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 2:44 pm

PeterLe wrote:Frogmella
if you have been trading financials since 1997 I assume that you have been successful so far...
I'm just curious to know how you have found trading betfair in comparison; are they many similarities and is this easier
Regards
Peter
Hi Peter,
I replied to this a while back but my reply seems to have disappeared.

I think there are many similarities to this and financials.

I am using the standard financial indicators in Bet Angel advanced charting and with a few tweaks and I have found them quite effective. They are exactly the same indicators I was using to trade index futures when I first started.

I find, to my great surprise that this has the same psychological pressures as trading currencies used to have for me. Even after all this time I am not immune though I am trading only minimum stakes for now.

You get the same impression that the whole market is just waiting for you to place a trade before it sets off in the other direction.

I don't think this is easier than currencies, but then again, I have only just started and I'm still feeling my way.

Regards

Frog.
rogerlisa
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:09 pm

I am glad to see an experienced trader making the same observation about the market waiting for you to make a move before it moves in the opposite direction. I am very new to this trading stuff and had made the same observation - I almost thought I had been hacked!! Paranoid or what! :lol: :lol:
Post Reply

Return to “Bet Angel for newbies / Getting started”