what to look for to do my first scalp trade ? advice from established traders please.

[nevermind]

It is one hell of a problem and I really must find the time to come to a decision. To green, or not to green, that is the question.

Putting aside the staking, the question is not that difficult really. If your greening bet is value, then greening is good.

If your greening bet is not value, then, well, greening might still be good. Consider the additional advantages of greening (brought up by other people already):
- great reduction of commissions (great for you overall P&L, very important!!)
- great reduction of variance (helps saving your bank, very important!!)
- protection against fundamental market misjudgements (especially for betting without live pictures)
- for long-term markets: frees money that can be used in other markets

That means: Greening is good even if my greening bet is not quite value! Only if I think the offered odds are far from the 'real odds', I would obviously not green up.

Therefore, my strategies are based on greening. Greening strategies are so much easier. In a market with reasonable liquidity, I don't think too much, I just green up, being happy with the winnings and the long-term profit of greening. I try to not regret any missed short-time profit. We would all be 1/4 millionaires if we would not miss all the many opportunities to make short-time profits.

[rphi6876]

I'm very curious as, pre race/match, you must have a limit on your bets as the perceived value increases! You'd obviously bet at 2.2 if you made it 2 and, as the price lengthened, where would you strike more bets 2.3, 2.4,2.5.......? Obviously the fix factor is there but, over the long term, this would be even out unless you were over betting due to the, seeming, value on offer on the odd selection such as the one I describe.

If you send me a private message with you email or provide me with some way of sending you a 830K pdf then I will give you a paper outlining this.

[rphi6876]

- great reduction of commissions (great for you overall P&L, very important!!)
.

Yeah which means higher premium charge. If your pc is high its worth paying those commissions.

That being said as I have stated greening is correct if your trading. My point has continually been if your puntnig on an outcome because you have value/ an edge, then with a small balance you can grow that quicly and with a zero probability of going bust by merely using a good risk management system referred to as Kelly Staking.

[WhyAlwaysMe]

I'm very curious as, pre race/match, you must have a limit on your bets as the perceived value increases! You'd obviously bet at 2.2 if you made it 2 and, as the price lengthened, where would you strike more bets 2.3, 2.4,2.5.......? Obviously the fix factor is there but, over the long term, this would be even out unless you were over betting due to the, seeming, value on offer on the odd selection such as the one I describe.

I don't see how you could easily Kelly bet on Betfair pre match because of the commission and PC. I was really only envisaging some micro inplay operation in a volatile market. I'm sure some do though but their edge must be high. To put it another way, if you are certain it's a 1.5 shot and you are getting 2.2 the drift, although irritating, is not going to kill you.

[helplessone]

I am confused, so I have a question to all the pro's here as I am only a trader and know nothing about value bet strategies:

if you have to pay premium charge, you need a value bet strategy that in the long run has an edge of approx 20%.

is that correct? if yes, I cant immage that exists such a strategy, such an edge in the more or less fair-priced markets. or I am wrong?

[nevermind]

if you have to pay premium charge, you need a value bet strategy that in the long run has an edge of approx 20%.

No. Any winning strategy should be good enough. Whatever you win below the line, you pay a minimum of 20% commission on that, but you still win (in most cases, I'm not going into details).

However, if you don't talk about strategies, but about single bets, its different. If you know you will be paying 20% commission, it is nearly impossible to find a single value bet...

[rphi6876]

I am confused, so I have a question to all the pro's here as I am only a trader and know nothing about value bet strategies:

if you have to pay premium charge, you need a value bet strategy that in the long run has an edge of approx 20%.

is that correct? if yes, I cant immage that exists such a strategy, such an edge in the more or less fair-priced markets. or I am wrong?

You cant put a specific number on the edge required to pay PC as it also is determined by the odds your betting at and I cant be bothered to calculate the relationship, and Idoubt there is a closed from solution for it.

But lets say yes 20% is the edge required. Is a 20% edge easy to find? How longs a piece of string? In the less liquid markets the spread can be more than 20% so thats an edge allready, I would say finding a 20% edge consistently in the English Premier League might be a little more difficult, but there is probably somebody out there much smarter than me who can find consistent value.

I was not saying you would pay premium charge if you make value bets, I was simply saying if you have a variety of stratagies, some which green up as you are scalping or trading the volatility, but have no real idea about what the true value is and another that bets on value. The strategy betting on value can reduce your PC.

[nevermind]

rphi, is there anything like a rule of thumb for Kelly staking? Or a table that could give me a better feeling for optimal bet sizes?

Some numbers have been given for an edge of 8% I think (after commission?). Whatever this 8% means, just the number itself seems quite high for me. I hardly ever know how big my edge really is, or whether I have an edge. Like custard, I cannot price within decimal places. I don't like to do the work necessary for that. Therefore, I would not have reliable input numbers for the Kelly formulas. Nevertheless, it would be a great help getting a better overall feeling for optimal stakes.

[rphi6876]

rphi, is there anything like a rule of thumb for Kelly staking? Or a table that could give me a better feeling for optimal bet sizes?

Some numbers have been given for an edge of 8% I think (after commission?). Whatever this 8% means, just the number itself seems quite high for me. I hardly ever know how big my edge really is, or whether I have an edge. Like custard, I cannot price within decimal places. I don't like to do the work necessary for that. Therefore, I would not have reliable input numbers for the Kelly formulas. Nevertheless, it would be a great help getting a better overall feeling for optimal stakes.

Unless you can backtest your edge with real data to be able to quantitiatvely determine your expected edge (and its confidence interval) then applying Kelly to determine you optimal bet size is difficult. If you overestimate you edge then probability of ruin approaches one.

If you are interested in the Kelly Criterion I would strongly recommend reading the paper I referenced earlier "The Kelly Criterion in Blackjack Sportsbetting and the stockMarket". Some get a little scared by the maths in it but its probably one of the simpler introductory papers on the topic and if you re-read it a couple of times you should get a good understanding of "what its all about". Page 4 in specific outlines how an optimal staking strategy maximises expected return but minimises the probability of ruin. The graph on page 6 is also a good illustration of how your stake size can relate to the probability of ruin. But basically its always better to understake than overstake

I am glad to see that some body has listened to something I have been saying.

[Morgans Choice]

I am glad to see that some body has listened to something I have been saying.

Hi R,

please don't think that your words are wasted, or that nobody is listening. I am fascinated by both sides of this debate and the documents referred to and I'm sure that there are many others who "haven't stuck their heads above the parapet" also paying attention. There are people on both sides whose opinions I've developed a healthy respect for and I'm grateful for all the information and evidence presented,

cheers, MC

[Rocket to the FACE]

Putting aside the staking, the question is not that difficult really. If your greening bet is value, then greening is good.

If your greening bet is not value, then, well, greening might still be good. Consider the additional advantages of greening (brought up by other people already):
- great reduction of commissions (great for you overall P&L, very important!!)
- great reduction of variance (helps saving your bank, very important!!)
- protection against fundamental market misjudgements (especially for betting without live pictures)
- for long-term markets: frees money that can be used in other markets

That means: Greening is good even if my greening bet is not quite value! Only if I think the offered odds are far from the 'real odds', I would obviously not green up.

Therefore, my strategies are based on greening. Greening strategies are so much easier. In a market with reasonable liquidity, I don't think too much, I just green up, being happy with the winnings and the long-term profit of greening. I try to not regret any missed short-time profit. We would all be 1/4 millionaires if we would not miss all the many opportunities to make short-time profits.

With respect most of the above is poor advice and if you stick by it you will be giving money away.
One part is true: "greening strategies are so much easier."

But we know nothing comes easy

If your greening bet is value, then greening is good.

But going back in for your stake is not?

[Rocket to the FACE]

At least one thing may come of the thread.

There is a vast difference between those who think they know and those who know.

Or to put another way:

Those who regurgitate what they have read elsewhere, and those who know.

[Caan Berry]

At least one thing may come of the thread.

There is a vast difference between those who think they know and those who know.

True, would be interesting to see who actually knows my guess is pretty much all of them didnt bother commenting.

[custard]

I cannot accept that the result of a race and staking are dependent on mathematics alone. My earlier comments relating to greening or letting bets run were applicable to cases where I had bet more than one selection in a race. (Level stakes, not dutching, and in semi-automated trading mode.)

On reflection, I realise that I have always "greened" in over 99% of the trades I have made if I thought that my profit was a reasonable one to take. Nothing I have read here will change this. Horses for courses , too old to change

[Rocket to the FACE]

So you disregard value betting in place of gut feeling because it gives you piece of mind?

This is the classic fear of losing. To really win you have to learn how to lose. And that isn't just a catchy little phrase it is the truth.