Thursday, 6 April 2017

Magic of Trading

James had a better suggestion for the 1.0 - 1.5 / 1.5 - 2.0 issue raised by Pyckio's tweet this week, which was confusing and for many of us, annoying:

Apologies for the screenshot, but the less than / greater than signs wreak havoc with HTML.

Hopefully James will also be apologising for such an awful pun.
Pyckio modified his tweet, similar to James' suggestion:
I still have a small issue with this, in that if the first band starts at a .00, then it should end with a .x9 (or to keep James happy, .x9 or .x(9), so that the next band starts with a .x0. Thus 1.5 should be included in the second band from the top, not the first, but at least the above is an improvement. 

As I mentioned in my last post, in my opinion using bands based on decimal prices is seriously flawed. Some of you may remember a 'study' published on Peter Nordsted's site last August, looking at 'even money' selections in football. Even money in this case included prices from 1.9 to 2.1, round enough numbers decimally speaking, but as I explained here, that lazy thinking leads to false results.

1.9 is not the same relative to 2.0 (evens) as 2.1 is to 2.0 as I explained:
1.9 (or 9 to 10) means the selection has an implied probability of 52.63%, with the inverse of that bet being 2.11.
2.1 (or 11 to 10) means the selection has an implied probability of 47.62%, with the inverse of that bet being 1.91.
So presuming you want your range to be fair and balanced, it should either be from 1.9 to 2.11 or from 1.91 to 2.1.
Unless you are into your statistics, this may seem picky, but by using a range of 1.9 to 2.1, you are including more odds-on selections in your sample than you are odds-against.

To clarify, by Jimmy's logic, and by extension, more expansive ranges would then be those from 1.8 to 2.2, from 1.6 to 2.4, from 1.2 to 2.8, and ultimately from 1.01 to 2.99. But the average is still evens... No it isn't.
Enough on this, I hear you say. 

My post on the Twitter exchange between Webbo, Statman and Zeljko a couple of days ago, drew some comments, the first of which came from Tony Stephens who wrote:
Surely the easiest way to prove your success would be to make available your full lifetime P and L at transaction level for all to slice and dice as they please. Rather than cherry pick the good days/ trades and then spend years defending your ability. What you never see is the end result of any training days in terms of who has actually managed to become a full time professional trader as a result.
I'm not actually aware of anyone who has attended one of Peter's courses, and subsequently turned professional, at least not successfully. 

I did find one attendee last August:
My name is Andy, and I’m here to write a review on the forthcoming Peter Webb Trading Masterclass course, which is happening on the 24th June, 2013.
who was anxious to blog about his experience, and my subsequent post can be found here. It was a dramatic tale. 

Andy (age 21) gave up his job upon discovering "the magic of trading" and "invested" a total of £600 to attend Peter's course (£400 + travel). Readers may draw their own conclusions as to the wisdom being displayed here. Three months after the course ended, he wrote:
I’m definitely not anywhere near recouping the cost of the course, but then again I felt like that was an investment.
This course is definitely not the magic pill that suddenly allows you to trade.
Lest you feel sympathy for Andy, worry not:
But all is well because a couple of years later, and Andy had moved on to "Profit Maximiser" which is "essentially a system that takes advantage of the free bet offers bookies throw our way to try and lure us into becoming new customers".
Andy writes:
Since I switched the emphasis to PM, I cleared my debts, bought myself an Aston Martin, have the money to holiday whenever and wherever I feel like and I have a number of entrepreneurial friends who I’m in talks with investing as a silent partner in their start-ups. All these things are my personal symbols of success, so I would say I got to the end goal, but in a manner that I completely didn’t expect. What mattered was setting the goals in the first place.
In a strange coincidence, a pig just flew past my window. 

James commented:
Considering the net worth of BetAngel I can't see how tubs can have made more from trading.
If he earns more from trading then why does he bother providing software and "training"? More likely the business is the earner and the trading has dwindled.
There has been a company name change or split from/between/to Optic and BetAngel so we will have to wait for new company figures.
Perhaps BetAngel is the entity that Peter referred to as not fully owning? Having developed the software, presumably additional sales are essentially free money, and the courses have the effect of encouraging the less-informed to add their money to the pool to the benefit of the more informed. Clearly it would make no sense for Peter, or any other course providers, to give away anything that would take away their edge. Either the courses are being run to bring it money because trading isn't that profitable, or their trading IS profitable and the courses offer nothing of value. I'm sure James will inform us when new company figures are available. 

Comment number three came from Jamie, who wrote:
I've been suspicious of Betfair deals regarding PC for a while. I suspect that software vendors and/or trainers who bring 'x' amount of new users to Betfair surely must have cut a deal.
Mr Webb makes out that at one time he has had his accounts suspended. (How you get more than 1 account to start with? I must try that one myself), and in doing so suggests that he has the same sort of relationship with Betfair as us 'normal' users have.
That is why he has 'starred' in Betfair promo vids like this and even produced his own videos visiting Betfair HQ like where he starts the video saying he is at 'one of his regular haunts'. Mr Berry has also starred in promo vids and sells his own 'tutoring' vids along with being associated with Geeks Toy.
He says very little regarding PC also. The same can be applied to Mr Hargraves who does regular courses and is in cahoots with Bet Trader software by Racing traders who openly admits he hasn't, and never will pay PC. His reasons have taken several guises from trading on someone else's behalf to losing on Betfair and winning somewhere else.
If they are making money then it quite frankly all stinks and will wind me up even more if and when the day comes when I start paying the amounts of PC the likes of Cassini is paying.
I'm not sure that it used to be a problem having more than one account, but it may be now. The silence surrounding Premium Charges could be because they all have special deals with Betfair that are confidential, or haven't reached that level yet. Certainly the explanation that Tony Hargraves gave for how he avoids PC makes absolutely no sense, in fact it betrays an ignorance of how probability works. As for the Cassini reference, keep reading this blog and you'll get there soon enough. Time is your friend. 

And finally Tony Stephens was back with a follow-up comment:
Some mentors will claim that only 5% of people make profits from sports trading. I would have thought that a good majority must come from those that pay for the knowledge. All I see are beginner traders that are learning their craft and having the odd day of success. Across the board, not 1 person has been highlighted as successfully changing their lifestyle on a permanent basis as a result of sports trading training courses or videos. If I were selling training courses and videos I would be showing potential buyers, on my website, at least 1 of the success stories of how I managed to mentor a novice into the new master trader. So the 5% claim looks massive to me.
I'm always suspicious about that 5% number. Where does it come from? Does it include the person who makes one winning bet and quits? What is the number for traders active in at least 100 markets a year for five years or more? 

Whatever that number is, and I suspect - as does Tony - that it's actually much less, I'm not sure I agree with the statement that a "good majority must come from those that pay for the knowledge". As discussed many times, anyone smart enough to develop an edge isn't likely to be stupid enough to give that edge away for a few quid. The only knowledge you'll be given is how to open an account, how to log in, how to back, how to lay, i.e just basic stuff. You really have to find your own way in the trading world. It's impossible for any methods to work all the time for everybody.

If there are any readers out there who have attended any training classes, please feel free to share your experience. Anonymity guaranteed. My email is calciocassini at aol dot com. 


James said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James said...
This comment has been removed by the author.