Ongoing "Trader of the week" results - Week 1 (week ending 05/07/09)

[Oasis]

I'm down by about 21 pounds! Grrr! I was at about £46 and had locked in at least £5 on the final yesterday, then had to go back in and tinker and ended up locking in a 49p loss!

I'm going to keep at it, but I think I can't just take a small profit, I have to go back in.

I started by backing Roddick at high odds at the start, then a little into the second set laid him off for a healthy profit. But then at the end I was getting on swings before they even happened. Backing at 6.8, then it'd swing out to 9-13 on roddick at points and would never come back. I little less haste on my part would be great. Had £6 and £4 on fed before I messed it up.

I also lost a fair chunk on the correct set score market on the Murray game, just too many markets open and unable to keep my bets even. I'd advise keep it to purely backing and laying one player otherwise I just got terribly confused.

It's been an interesting week though, I can definitely see where the profit would come from. Not sure whether it's for me though, it feels far too much like gambling and I just hate accepting losses (this is where I struggle to change my mindset) Matched betting has made me kick myself every time I lose because it's usually my fault, whereas in trading you have to accept a loss quickly and move on. I find I'm always determined to turn a profit and just sit there hoping the odds swing back.

I'll try closing out and leaving the trades if I give it a go next week, build up lots of small profits.

[Eddie]

I tend to agree: gambling + locking in profit.
You've taken a position which went well in your favour then you've locked in profit.
At the level 7.60, you were only 5 ticks from the risk of ruin - the next available odds are either 7.40 or 7.80, i.e. 10% of your stake per tick.
Instead of backing Roddick say £50 at 7.60 you could have layed Fed at corresponding odds, i.e. £333@1.15 (risking £50). The benefit is 1 tick at those low odds is 1% of your stake.

But am not participating in this contest, so my opinion is just my opinion.
Good Luck

I dont understand these lay figures being "better" at all mate, with the Federer lay it may be 1 percent of your stake but it's £3.33 per tick cos of the large lay amount so 6.7% of your total capital per tick, the Roddick Back is 2.7% per tick but lower capial risk per tick if you need to hedgeout. Anyway as it's a two runner event both sides balance each other and with such a liquid market the equilibrium will be maintained (i.e. always around the 100% overound mark) so whichever side you trade your going to be in much the same position.

[AmeliesDad]

My best trading last week was 7.28 profit on Roddick v Murray set betting. It was made up of 61 bets of either 2 or 5 quid (plus a few little ones when hedging)!
I managed to get out of a couple of bad trades for small losses (pennies) and made most of the profit on the Murray 3-2 scoreline. Average back price was 4.04 and lay price 3.81 as that was where there was a gap for most of the match and I just put in bets at either side of it which were consistently taken, occasionally varying the amount to spread some of the profit to other scorelines. By doing similar on all the active scorelines though I managed to turn the now impossible scores into reds while trading up the ones remaining. So when 3-0 became impossible there was no reason to spread the green to those scores and I traded all the remaining scores instead.

(Total weeks profit was £7.04)

[Andy]

Procrastinator was definitely trading, he bought and sold odds to garuntee/change his Net results over time, trying to make more money than just backing something and waiting for it to happen.

It was a "gamble" because it might not have worked and he might have lost. Trading is a form of gambling. He was trading.

I have a £70 float to move into Week2 now, I have done it ALL on Tennis to date and liked it as I had some knowledge of the Sport, very roughly what the odds "should" be anyway and although there are sharp swings you can always get out at some loss if you wanted. I will try Horse trading but it will definitiely be at £2 stakes.

[shyle of pyte]

I'm a bit embarrassed to admit this, but I made £59.35 on the Nicaragua Mexico game, ou2.5 goals market. It was supposed to be standard trading for a couple of pounds profit, but I must have messed up somehow.

I thought that I was all green for a small locked-in profit when my internet connection started playing up, so I went to bed. This morning I discovered that I had made an enormous miscalculation which went in my favour.

This was not trading because I would not have made a profit if a third goal was scored, nor had I leveraged the odds in my favour. I'm a lucky guy but if my profit is the largest of the week it doesn't deserve a prize. I think Procrastinator was trading and should win.

My float is £134 now, on annual leave this week so I might try the nags during the day. What's the worst that can happen?

Good luck for the next week!

[Oasis]

Think I'm going to hang in here. Just noticed a mistake I made at Betboo, in which I forgot to back and the lay won, which netted me an unexpected £100. That makes the losses in trading a little easier to take.

I suppose it's week by week, and I really want to get to grips with a market and make some money from it. So with a starting balance of about £29 for week two, I'm going to give it another go!

[Procrastinator]

Hey all,

Ok, I have tried to attach a pic so people can see the trades (gambles) I made.

There were 5 in total.

1) A couple of games in I went in on Roddick at 7.8. I came back out 2 games later at 8. In the Roddick Murray match I had seen that the receivers odds had stayed reasonably constant from the start of the game to the end. I think I backed about 15 games (swapping my green from side to side) in that match, so I figured it cost me little to be behind the receiver, and if there was a break I would make some money. However after trying this once on R v F I realised it wasn't going to work so well - Good job I did as Roddick held serve for a very long time!

2) I don't really know my arse from my tennis elbow, but after the thumping Roddick gave Murray and after it was 3-3 I just didn't believe Roddick was really a 7.6 shot and decided I was going to play for my wedge. Had Roddick lost the first set I reckon he would have gone out to 15 or 20 and I would have been left with only a tenner - So while it went right this time, I may get my fingers burnt next time! But I held my nerve and Roddick broke. I actually thought quality would win and Fed would come on strong after so I backed out straight away locking in most of the profit from the game.

3) I then noticed that Fed's odds were fluctuating wildly on his service game in set 2. So I went in at 1.48 at the start of his service game and out again at 1.41 (this time for £10 stakes). These two bets were only a minute apart. I only actually managed this as I got distracted at this point!

4) I lost track a bit after this, but at some point fed had gone out to 1.5 and I still thought he was going to win thorugh and so deided I would go back in for £20 (though the value is reduced by the odds). I think I closed this one out when it was 2-2 and Fed had dropped back to 1.21.

I would like to think I did well at picking the value in there, but in truth it was likely luck more than anything.

I think my next trades will be on the ashes (already lost £4.50 on it mind, went in at 2.6 and had to close it at 2.8 so I had some funds available for the tennis).

SHYLE OF PETE - Congrats on your result! Part of trading is luck, so you sure you don't want to claim the prize?

Amelies Dad - Nice post, interesting to hear about the trading in the range play. Might have to give that one a go!

One last thing - I don't think I or any other trader of the week should be allowed to win twice. I now have an advantage over others from my bigger bank roll. Sound fair?

[Andy]

One last thing - I don't think I or any other trader of the week should be allowed to win twice. I now have an advantage over others from my bigger bank roll. Sound fair?

I would say you can win twice, its survival of the fittest, you can win as many times as possible. If not its like saying ManUtd cant win the Premiership and the FA Cup in the same year because they have more money than the other teams. And that means they have better players. It might not be "fair" but thats just tough. They still get to win as much as they want, which incidently means they have more fans so more money so more wins and more fans, and more money, and better players, etc etc etc. Thats just the way it is.

The people with lower bankrolls either should have been less brave and bet smaller at the start and so not lost it so soon, or now get better quicker to catch up. Thats the way a contest works.

(Its not my competition though it is Munks, he will have final say)

[Eddie]

Large Bankroll? The bigger they come the harder they fall Well done Pele of shyte for your flukey win, of course were this a longer contest, say over one year I think your trade could count as these mistakes cancel each other out in the long term so it would be considered "one of those things" and part of the game, but I suppose in a short term comp like this it would rather skew things.
Procrastinator, good name, it'd suit me as well. I saw a funny t-shirt once, it said "Procrastinators - leaders of tomorrow" lol

[Cloverleaves]

So with a starting balance of about £29 for week two, I'm going to give it another go!

Good for you! Hang tough.