Measuring Weakness

The consensus among traders is that a sub-category under the heading of "Discipline" is that of keeping accurate records, but it is arguable this may be more of a hindrance than a help at times. The previously discussed Dr. J thread had a comment to this effect

The worst thing about keeping note of good betting runs is that we are setting up artificial hurdles for ourselves. We are creating a difficulty that should not exist.

As an illustration, as April was winding down, I was very much aware of how close to ridding my spreadsheet of the one red month I was. While I tried not to let this affect my betting, the seed was planted in the back of my mind, and undoubtedly impacted my decision making process. I had the short-term goal of making a large enough profit in April to cover previous losses, which meant that I was more selective than I would normally be.

While it could be argued that this target was meaningless and artificial, to me it was important. Passing any milestone is really meaningless, but going from say £980 to £1,001 is probably more exciting to most people than going from £1,001 to £1,023, even if the latter is the bigger win.

How would I have bet if April had been close to a record month, and I needed 'just' another £300 on the 30th to beat my personal best? Would my betting have been a little looser than normal in an attempt to beat that artificial goal? While we should always play the same way, I doubt that too many of us have completely mastered this skill.

One suggestion on the Betfair Forum from a few years ago, was to trade without your balance or P&L figure showing on the screen - the idea being of course that your decisions would be based on the current situation alone, uninfluenced by factors such as those I have mentioned above. Easier said than done, but the idea does have some merit.

There was another comment that was mildly amusing, given that the thread starter has made close to £200k in seven years. After reporting that recent results had been poor, someone posted this gem

...but I now see a real weakness - and maybe you have to convince that your edge has been tested sufficiently over enough events

OK, poor English, but you get the idea. The number of events that the commenter felt was required to prove an edge exists? Here's his answer

I know we are digressing from the main theme of the OP [Original Poster], but to me the 'edge' has to be proven over at least 100,000 events before you can claim it being successful.

100,000! Talk about an artificial number. 99,000 won't do, but roll that odometer over to six digits, and now we're on to something real!

One reply, which I thought was particularly brilliant, was:

Any edge in the markets only exists because there is an inefficiency, and will not last forever. The edge may be 'proven' one day, and 'proven' to be gone the next day. However, in markets, as in plate tectonics, as one edge closes, another one may open. 100,000 trials in the context of sports betting is nuts. At 20 bets a day, it would be close to 14 years before you had that number of bets, and to say that the markets might have changed in that time would be putting it mildly. And if you have a system that produces 20 value bets a day, you should be living in the Cayman Islands long before 14 years has passed by applying Kelly.

At the rate my Strong Draws are showing up, it'll be 645 years before I know if I have an edge or not. The Methuselah Foundation had better get moving.