tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4528393111359731672.post9001861316239771019..comments2024-03-24T00:19:53.054+00:00Comments on Green All Over: Measuring WeaknessCassinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05879449876804295094noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4528393111359731672.post-22658758342233955512011-05-04T16:40:57.811+01:002011-05-04T16:40:57.811+01:00Hi. I'm a relatively new trader. I mainly trad...Hi. I'm a relatively new trader. I mainly trade pre-race horse markets. In your opinion, how many bets/trades would be a good marker to see if you do have an edge? Or is it a case of if you are in profit in 3/6/12 months then you have an edge. I realise that you could lose your edge over time, but just wanted your opinion really. Also, as far as keeping records go, to an extent it is helpful in my opinion. Not just in the sense that you know what you have won/lost but you can see which bits you can improve upon, what markets are not that profitable over time or as you have mentioned before in previous posts, which months are not that kind to you.inplayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00328666149516248070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4528393111359731672.post-22785670889497631812011-05-04T13:05:55.121+01:002011-05-04T13:05:55.121+01:00As a trader I see no point whatsoever in keeping r...As a trader I see no point whatsoever in keeping records maybe they're helpful for all the system/stats bettors. I've done it in the past, thought it was the thing to do but for someone taking ticks here and there I can't see what use it'd be for me to know how well I did in August last year.<br /><br />I'd recommend trading with the balance off as continually checking the pnl can be counterproductive by either making people take unneccessary risks when they're down or being overcautious to protect profits when up. If I take a big hit on a market I'll check the 30 day or 7 day pnl on the betting history and that's usually enough to convince me I'm doing something right so as to not overreact.<br /><br />As for birch's idea of needing 100000 bets to prove an edge it's quite obvious he doesn't have an edge. Anyone with an edge knows exactly how it works and when it occurs, you certainly don't need 100000 bets to prove it to yourself or anyone else before using it.BotTraderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681228672528767200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4528393111359731672.post-63662447799694012232011-05-04T13:04:11.737+01:002011-05-04T13:04:11.737+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.BotTraderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681228672528767200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4528393111359731672.post-91746412548140248082011-05-04T12:32:09.565+01:002011-05-04T12:32:09.565+01:00100k iterations, what a joke.
It amazes me with r...100k iterations, what a joke.<br /><br />It amazes me with regularity that people don't understand what's statistically necessary to "prove" or otherwise a "system" or method. <br /><br />100,000 bets on horses that are all priced 200/1 or above might not be significant to "prove" anything. 100 bets at even money with 70 winners and 30 losers will provide confidence to a certain level that there is a winning methodology at work.<br /><br />It does correctly identify though that just because there was a historical edge, all these markets and edges are dynamic, and past performance is no guarantee of future success!<br /><br />Imagine paper trading 100k bets before placing one. You'd need to be a millionaire to afford the paper and pens :)mouldhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17214196136374354948noreply@blogger.com