When do you get out ?

[luckynumberslevin]

GETTING OUT and when depends on what you did to get put IN the 1st place and your strategy whilst in.

[jmf]

One thing I'd like to know - you're in the middle of the match and wanting advice. How qucikly did you get a response through this forum? Wouldn't it have been quicker to ring someone?

I also agree with pre-defining entry and exit points by the way.

[Temujin]

No offense to anybody but some ridiculous advice being given out here. Since when did pre game strategy dictate life? Do none of you have the ability to assess value? Then why trade in the first place?

Simple fact is this. The idea of trading is to assess value on your entering trade, and value on your exiting trade. Any predetermined strategy should be a guide only.

The simple answer to the original question, is where is the value? If it is value to lay at 1.17, then trade out, if it isn't, then why bother? Why lay something at 1.17 when it should be 1.10?

Makes zero sense.

[custard]

Simple strategy. Look at the market, if the price is right, enter it. Then, see how things go. Do your own thing and "knickers" to everybody else ! Sometimes I close too early, sometimes too late but I'm just a human being who does not possess psychic powers.

Two examples :

I thought here would be goals in the two football matches involving Wales and England last night. Both were on TV so, I backed Over 2.5 goals at around 2 in each game.

England bombarded Moldova, the home side totally incapable of keeping possession and goals were absolutely inevitable. Started off slowly but there was never a thought of me taking anything other than a full profit.

Wales v Belgium saw a depleted Welsh side take on a side which had good strikers, Hazard and Fellaini. Wales played very well and were holding Belgium . Sadly, speaking as a Welshman, James Collins was sent off and the game changed. It was clear from the markets that most people expected Wales to get whipped and the price for Over 2.5 did not move much. By the time Belgium had scored their first goal, the price had dropped but not by an enormous amount. I was able to take a loss of only 40% of my initial stake, and, at that stage of the game, that was very good. I didn't expect Belgium to even try to win by more than two goals now as all they had to do was to keep possession of the ball. Other people's views of the game enabled me to escape with a reasonable loss.

Now, none of the things mentioned in the last paragraph could have been seen before the game. My entry point was determined but I didn't have a clue when I was going to "jump out" of either game until the game started. Overall, I made a nice profit on the two games.

So, I agree with Temujin. It's daft to place unnecessary restraints on how one can trade before an event. You enter the market, and you do what you think is best.

[jmf]

I think Jibiko has hit the holy grail - you need to know the end result while the game is still in play. Why have we all missed that one for so long?

Also all of this discussion is about when to exit a trade. You can always close it and then if you still think it is good value you can get in again. That at least secures some profit.

[Cran]

I tried trading (and still do it for fun sometimes) but I make more from straight bets (gambling)...

[PC0845]

One thing I'd like to know - you're in the middle of the match and wanting advice. How qucikly did you get a response through this forum? Wouldn't it have been quicker to ring someone?

I also agree with pre-defining entry and exit points by the way.

This was a long time ago, I stayed in, recovery started and I traded out for ZERO profit, yep f**k all, didn't take DB's advice, shit happens I suppose.

I agree with the entry / exit points but only on the stop loss side. I have been using a stop loss for 2% of my bank per trade for the last few days. My loss exit is predefined but my profit is not, but €50 a couple of days ago is €160 now.

I did not stare at reds mounting and remain paralysed, the really important thing is that my stakes are predefined to give me a 2% loss (I use a 0.5% of my bank book profit setting with 5 tick stop loss). I have discovered I have no idea which way the market will go but am making selections purely on their price and instinct, no other reason, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and lose 2% if I'm right I win. Either I am a superb subconscious market analyst or just plain lucky today, and yesterday, and Thursday.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Conservative stake size, stop loss and entry points, that's my new recipe for global domination.

[Temujin]

I think Jibiko has hit the holy grail - you need to know the end result while the game is still in play. Why have we all missed that one for so long?

Also all of this discussion is about when to exit a trade. You can always close it and then if you still think it is good value you can get in again. That at least secures some profit.

Say what? So if you think it is good value to enter a trade, you think you should exit a trade there? What the hell?

Forget about the fact that you have a trade in play right now. You are suggesting that 1.17 is value to back. Yeah? So why do anything but back it?

Now assuming you have a trade in place. You are scared and want to "secure some profit". So you lay out at 1.17, then decide to reenter the market because you think it is value to do so, so you back at 1.16 and start again. Right?

So my question is this. On what planet, is laying at 1.17 to back at 1.16 a good trading practice?



The reality is this. If you want to trade an in play game with a set strategy based purely on pre game opinions, then set your bet up, set up your keep bet trade out at your predetermined odds, set up your stop loss if that is the kind of person you are. Then walk away. There is no valid reason for you to watch the game with your software running. Zero. What are you going to do, reassess and change it up based on what is happening in the game? No, because you already have your predefined parameters.
If you actually want to trade the game, then a huge percentage of your decision making will occur while the game is being played. You can have a rough idea on what the likely scenarios are that will happen, but a game in play changes everything. If you are going to trade a live game, then you are constantly assessing the scenarios from that point, and constantly assessing the value.
Quite often I will let it ride. Get the first one right, sum up the scenario of where the odds will go on the next play, and if I am happy to take that loss then I will take it. Compound trading I guess you could call it. The benefit of your green getting bigger is a higher percentage than what you will lose if it goes the other way.


The only time I will trade at something that isn't value, is when I have exposed myself huge, and I am a little worried about the ability to get out of trouble due to liquidity, and when I do that it is all about getting my exposure level down to an acceptable level rather than trading out. I justify it as increasing my average back odds on my acceptable stake.

And of course people will line up to tell me not to overexpose in the first place, but that is what trading on the fly is all about. You are constantly reassessing what is happening. I dumped my full BF balance on one event because the value was so good. I saw the odds as 1/1000, but was getting 1.02 about it, so why not. Not interested in stale trading, but I see a place for it.
Point being though, if you want to have predetermined entry and exit points, then there is no need to be active during the game. Set it and forget it. And if you don't have the ability to read a game live, then don't trade it live.

Simple really.

[jmf]

Say what? So if you think it is good value to enter a trade, you think you should exit a trade there? What the hell?

Forget about the fact that you have a trade in play right now. You are suggesting that 1.17 is value to back. Yeah? So why do anything but back it?

Now assuming you have a trade in place. You are scared and want to "secure some profit". So you lay out at 1.17, then decide to reenter the market because you think it is value to do so, so you back at 1.16 and start again. Right?

So my question is this. On what planet, is laying at 1.17 to back at 1.16 a good trading practice?



The reality is this. If you want to trade an in play game with a set strategy based purely on pre game opinions, then set your bet up, set up your keep bet trade out at your predetermined odds, set up your stop loss if that is the kind of person you are. Then walk away. There is no valid reason for you to watch the game with your software running. Zero. What are you going to do, reassess and change it up based on what is happening in the game? No, because you already have your predefined parameters.
If you actually want to trade the game, then a huge percentage of your decision making will occur while the game is being played. You can have a rough idea on what the likely scenarios are that will happen, but a game in play changes everything. If you are going to trade a live game, then you are constantly assessing the scenarios from that point, and constantly assessing the value.
Quite often I will let it ride. Get the first one right, sum up the scenario of where the odds will go on the next play, and if I am happy to take that loss then I will take it. Compound trading I guess you could call it. The benefit of your green getting bigger is a higher percentage than what you will lose if it goes the other way.


The only time I will trade at something that isn't value, is when I have exposed myself huge, and I am a little worried about the ability to get out of trouble due to liquidity, and when I do that it is all about getting my exposure level down to an acceptable level rather than trading out. I justify it as increasing my average back odds on my acceptable stake.

And of course people will line up to tell me not to overexpose in the first place, but that is what trading on the fly is all about. You are constantly reassessing what is happening. I dumped my full BF balance on one event because the value was so good. I saw the odds as 1/1000, but was getting 1.02 about it, so why not. Not interested in stale trading, but I see a place for it.
Point being though, if you want to have predetermined entry and exit points, then there is no need to be active during the game. Set it and forget it. And if you don't have the ability to read a game live, then don't trade it live.

Simple really.

No, that's not what I meant. I am talking about live trading. Rugby markets are pretty volatile, along with the likes of basketball etc. They can change so quickly that stops often don't work. My point is that there would have been very little potential downside in trading out at that point in the game, although I have no idea how many minutes there were to go. Obviously the odds went way up again, creating more potential opportunities. If you are going to go that way you really need to enter your exit points to allow them to be matched rather than wait around.

It's a lot easier to watch big swings in odds at the end of a close basketball game than it is to profit from them, obviously.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "still".

[Morgans Choice]

Hi P,

for me choosing when to get out has a large psychological element to it.

My nature is to like rigid rules because, it relieves me of the responsibility for the trade. I can "blame" the the rules rather than my dithering, half witted brain and whilst not feeling exactly superior, at least don't feel guilty.

Once I'd realised that, it became a matter of "logically" determining what I could expect to get out of a trade, then testing it "live" recording the results, changing the position, recording the results and so on until I'd determined the "optimum position".

Because most of my trading is similar to scalping with a predetermined tick offset (I trade horses and dogs prerace) the key parameter became time and it is different for dogs and horses and obviously would be different again for rugby, football, cricket etc.

Dogs 5 seconds then close, horses 3 seconds.

Of course that is only the approach that suits me, I suspect that there are as many different techniques as there are traders,

cheers, MC

[KOTBIIAJIbTO]

I tried trading (and still do it for fun sometimes) but I make more from straight bets (gambling)...

Same here, though my betting strategy almost stopped bringing me profit several months ago and now I'm desperately trying to get it back on track.