Steve commented –
The simple fact is you won’t win long term gambling or trading if your not getting value. With trading at least one side of your trade needs to be a value bet, optimally we’d have both lay and back as value bets but that’s harder to acheive automated than doing it manually. So whether you like it or not your monthly £26.55 winnings are coming from some of the value bets you place. It’s not particularily hard to identify where your value is coming from bets you’ve placed and from there you can start to fine tune bots so they work as efficiently as possible.
I did consider writing a much more in depth reply re:value and how to assess it but you do seem to be more interesting in cultivating some cut price Cassini blog personna than your bots for the time being.
Thanks for the comment.
Getting value when betting on an outcome means taking a better than true price. If you back at 4.0 but true price is 3.65 then you have value. If you lay the same at 3.2, you have value. Based on this, consider if I enter on this selection with a back at 3.2 and exit at 3.0, I have a green trade. My entry point bet is not at value with regards to event outcome. My exit point bet is at value with regards to event outcome. My trade as a whole has value as it results in a green book. This fits with the points made in the comment above but not with the statement “every bet sent should be allowed to stand on its own merits”. As described, my entry point, made prior to an exchange crash, is not at value in this instance – longterm losing (the argument here could be that the random nature of these crash events would, over time, likely have a neutral (less commission) effect on my bank but the infrequency would be more disruptive than that theoretical neutralness). So the term “value” is relative to the actions and results intended. (Other comment points noted.)
Tobias commented –
Hi, I am also into bot betting, but with a different twist compared to your approach… You seem to have something interesting going on, have you done some thinking about scaling up stakes? What kind of potential does your strategies have for bigger stakes? Anyway, god luck with your bots and keep us updated on your progress!
Thanks for the comment.
Stakes – I’ve allowed stakes to rise with bank in the past and found that return falls steadily to a point at which larger variance occurs followed by losses. I now have Oscar set to various stakes within a fixed range just below the point of where I saw more variance. I don’t intend increasing stakes on this strategy but may revisit this in the future, as things can change.
Updates- I’ve spent a lot of time in recent months on programming a new bot in visual basic, I’ll do a post on that soon (hopefully), it’s been a journey.
On Twitter, Tony tweeted –
As much as I like the graphs and regular updates, no graphs and monthly rep = more dev time for you. Hope I get some subs money back! 😉
As mentioned, I’ve been developing a new bot, in a new to me language, so that’s where my time has gone. The graphs can be included in the blog, I can’t say I thought through that decision thoroughly. With a months worth of data on them I was thinking they may be less detailed, as in a line with less variance than reality, I’ll reassess. Subs will be discussed at the next AGM.