Posted:
#26
thnx 4 your info hope it works out for us
0
Critique My Method (NHL)
Posted:
#28
We ended November with our biggest win of the season yet, a 191 ML on FLA. Our total tally for the month was 13-16 (45%), a gain of 1.66 units.
Over the course of the season my target for the underdogs is 50%, which should yield a gain of approximately 5.5 units over the same number of events.
Dec 1:
VAN @ 104
TOR @ 121
Over the course of the season my target for the underdogs is 50%, which should yield a gain of approximately 5.5 units over the same number of events.
Dec 1:
VAN @ 104
TOR @ 121
0
Posted:
#42
Quote Originally Posted by Sumtingwong:
A comment here on the money management system and Gambler's Fallacy. Basically, it states that every event is statistically independent and not related. Perhaps a stop needs to be put in place at a certain point?
A comment here on the money management system and Gambler's Fallacy. Basically, it states that every event is statistically independent and not related. Perhaps a stop needs to be put in place at a certain point?
Sure, this is true. Each event is statistically independent. However, it is also true through binomial distribution (as I mentioned in my first post), that you can predict with certainty over a large number of events how likely a certain outcome is. For example, if you expect an event 50% of the time, you can predict how likely you are to be wrong say, 5 times in a row. The formula is:
.5 x .5 x .5 x .5 x .5 = 3%
So while the gambler's fallacy is true (I love the irony), over a large number of events you can expect a low standard deviation. The problem with stops is there is usually no rhyme or reason behind their use, i.e., where they are employed.
I used the progressive system to great success the last two MLB seasons, but have decided to stick with straight bets and increase the total number of events.
0
Posted:
#43
A stop should not be arbitrary and risk must be managed and predefined for each bettor. For instance, if you are up 10% betting the NHL, a chase could encompass all your winnings for the year until the bankroll is even. At this point, the chase stops. If the chase happens to run to 10 bets based on the 10% winnings, standard deviation tells us that this is a slim possibility and there should be a win in there somewhere.
I am curious as to your methodology for trading: what stops were placed and why? Are they any more arbitrary than here? Did you chase bad trades?
I am sweeping away the cobwebs on the stats and running some numbers. Will post when through. I think there is a confidence level that may come into play as well.
All said, if your system is working, keep rolling.
0
Posted:
#47
Quote Originally Posted by Sumtingwong:
A stop should not be arbitrary and risk must be managed and predefined for each bettor. For instance, if you are up 10% betting the NHL, a chase could encompass all your winnings for the year until the bankroll is even. At this point, the chase stops. If the chase happens to run to 10 bets based on the 10% winnings, standard deviation tells us that this is a slim possibility and there should be a win in there somewhere.
A stop should not be arbitrary and risk must be managed and predefined for each bettor. For instance, if you are up 10% betting the NHL, a chase could encompass all your winnings for the year until the bankroll is even. At this point, the chase stops. If the chase happens to run to 10 bets based on the 10% winnings, standard deviation tells us that this is a slim possibility and there should be a win in there somewhere.
I am curious as to your methodology for trading: what stops were placed and why? Are they any more arbitrary than here? Did you chase bad trades?
I am sweeping away the cobwebs on the stats and running some numbers. Will post when through. I think there is a confidence level that may come into play as well.
All said, if your system is working, keep rolling.
The 'stop' you have described is, in fact, arbitrary. It is based only on the objective you hope to accomplish, viz., winning. It is not based on a statistical probability that you expect based on a formula.
Of course, I do agree about the slim possibilities of a 10 game losing streak, but you can easily calculate the probabilities based on say, 50% per event: .09%.
As to your question, I don't think you've read the full thread. There are no 'stops' here, because we are not using a progressive system.
In the MLB, we used no stops, because as I've indicated here, they're purely arbitrary and have no mathematical basis for placement. As I asked previous questioners, how do you choose whether it's 4, 5, 10 or 20? The immediately succeeding event would have a far higher probability than it's predecessor, so I don't see how you choose. Case in point is the example you've used, i.e., 10 game chase, where the probability of a 9 game losing streak is 0.195% and the 10 game losing streak is 0.098%
Over the course of the MLB season our longest losing streak was 7. We had several of 4. 2 and 3 game streaks were common.
0
Posted:
#48
Quote Originally Posted by bluejays99:
Milkman instead of evaluating how other systems perform. Why don't you try to evaluate the value added that you bring to this forum. I can help you out with that one. It's zero.
This guy 'milkman' still can't get his math right. Whether it's W-L or net units, he's always wrong somewhere. Anyway, I've noticed he doesn't post when there are a few back to back wins, but waits for back to back losses and then jumps in. Scan his posts on other threads-never anything constructive!
What are the probabilities it's a pseudonym for another user? I'd say about 78.5%
0
Posted:
#49
sdiinc,
I have read all your threads; that is how I emailed you and determined that you trade financial instruments for a living--please look at the second email I sent you.
Yes, the stop is arbitrary for a group or a system, but not for an individual based on their bankroll and risk profile.
I ran the numbers and everything is very straightforward. The only thing that you need to worry about, stats-wise, is that your sample is greater than 30 when compiling your data for a selection--this comes from the Central Limit Theorem. The Central Limit Theorem can also be used for a selection based on the last 30 plays: if the 50/50 plays are several standard deviations from the norm, a play in the opposite direction may be wise. Also, as is almost always the case, more data = better results.
0
Hot Forum Topics
