Skip to main content

damage control when trading goals

When trades go bad, some people will say cut your losses immediately, others will recommend having a bit of patience as events tend to level out (i.e. games with two goals in the first 10 mins never end up with 18 goals in 90 minutes). This is something I like to do on certain matches.

Background:
1. You've backed Under 2.5 goals, trying to nick a few ticks at a time as the clock ticks.
2. You've been caught out by a goal.
3. The market has gone sharply against you.

On this particular match from a couple of weeks ago, there was an early goal (sixth minute) before I got involved. The period immediately after an early goal regularly shows a sharp drop in the Under price, so I was trying to capitalise on that. But Watford then scored again after 14 minutes. The Back price I took (3.95) was now out to 12 - I could close out for a big loss (not my style) or wait and wait for the price to come back to somewhere I could close out for minimal damage. But at 2-0 after 15 minutes, it was going to be a long wait - probably the 55-60 minute mark when the Unders would get back to 3.95. Too risky for me.

Enter Plan B. Have a little more on the Unders at the big price - in this case 12. Yes it's a bigger downside if there's another goal, but on the plus side, my average price on Unders rises significantly to 6.32, which turns out to be about the odds Unders was at HT.



The My Bets section is listed in time order, so hopefully you can follow what I've done. As the Unders price dropped, I've chipped away, a little at a time to minimise the risk while not ruining the overall price. As I've got close to the target mark of 6.32, I've kept some and laid beneath that price in order to claim a small profit - BEFORE the market has returned to the 3.95 level of my first bet.

This is just an example of what you can do on these markets when caught out. Take it or leave it, it's just putting an extra option in your armoury. It won't work every time. There is no such thing as a betting/investing/trading strategy that works every time. The sooner you realise that it's a hard grind like everything else in this world, the sooner you can contemplate making a modest return of trading.

Comments

  1. What you have done is called averaging and is the play of a smart trade. After backing at 3.95 and having the market go against you, and then backing at 12.00 you are averaging a back price of 8.00 and so as the price comes down, through 7.00 and 6.00 and then 5.00 you can chip away and end up with a winning trade. Cutting losses or just stopping out should be a last resort and all other avenues explored before just bailing.

    Another way to hedge that position would have been to lay 2-0 as another goal would have killed you under 2.5 but would have won the 2-0 lay, hence recovering some money. It's a good back up in case the third goal comes whilst averaging because doing that, you cannot lose both bets. Averaging, the way you have, means there is a possibility you can lose all bets if the third goal comes before you can average out with the lays.

    Now I realise you know this, it was for the benefit of your readers that maybe didn't.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, but if you're a spammer, you've just wasted your time - it won't get posted.

Popular posts from this blog

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

Racing has a Ponzi scheme - and the fallout will be enormous

When the term 'Ponzi scheme' is mentioned these days, the names Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford instantly spring to mind. The pair of them ran multi-billion dollar frauds (US$60bn and $8bn respectively) that destroyed the lives of thousands of investors who had put their life savings into a 'wonderful' investment strategy. How so many people were sucked into the scheme is baffling to those on the outside. The lifestyle, the sales pitch, the success stories of the early investors - I suppose it all adds up.

So where does this link to racing you ask? A prominent Australian 'racing identity' this week has been reported to have lost access to a bank account with punters' club funds of $194m in it. Firstly - is there a worse term for anyone to be labelled with that 'racing identity'? It ALWAYS ends up meaning shonky crook! Secondly - who the hell has a punters' club with an active bankroll in the tens of millions? It simply can't be done.

The…