Exchange Games
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
26 Dec 09
04:38
Joined:
Date Joined:
31 Jan 09
Dear Petera,
I agree with You that losing streaks must be stopped in one way or another.
The way I do it is to look at the consecutive wins and losses and then either I switch Test Mode ON or OFF.
The problem here is that I always have to risk my real money when testing a new system.
So, can You tell me please how You handle this problem?
It would be much easier if I could just toggle the Auto-Trading button in X-Feeder, but it doesn't seem to allow this.
Or am I on a completely wrong track regarding this whole "stopping the losing streak" thing? (Comments from the whole community are of course welcome, too.)
Another problem that bugs me is whether to use flat stakes or not.
You tell us that it isn't feasible, on which I agree, but nzbot and FalconBelgium both seem to have found winning systems that don't rely on any progression whatsoever, with nzbot even making considerable profit out of it.
Any comments regarding this from the community?
One last small question to finish it off:
Is it possible to implement a "trailing stop" trigger in X-Feeder?
I sincerely thank any person who took the time to read my text and thank all the persons in advance for their honest answers.
Thank You!
I agree with You that losing streaks must be stopped in one way or another.
The way I do it is to look at the consecutive wins and losses and then either I switch Test Mode ON or OFF.
The problem here is that I always have to risk my real money when testing a new system.
So, can You tell me please how You handle this problem?
It would be much easier if I could just toggle the Auto-Trading button in X-Feeder, but it doesn't seem to allow this.
Or am I on a completely wrong track regarding this whole "stopping the losing streak" thing? (Comments from the whole community are of course welcome, too.)
Another problem that bugs me is whether to use flat stakes or not.
You tell us that it isn't feasible, on which I agree, but nzbot and FalconBelgium both seem to have found winning systems that don't rely on any progression whatsoever, with nzbot even making considerable profit out of it.
Any comments regarding this from the community?
One last small question to finish it off:
Is it possible to implement a "trailing stop" trigger in X-Feeder?
I sincerely thank any person who took the time to read my text and thank all the persons in advance for their honest answers.
Thank You!
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 23
|
By:
The way to do it is, do all the calculations within X-feeder and bet only when the conditions are correct. In other words, in this case, the betting trigger should be looking at the previous wins/losses and be making the decision on IF to place the bet or not.
I have never found counting the previous wins/losses in isolation to be a successful method of determining the start of a losing streak though but good luck with it. It is possible to make a profit using level stakes but if your system is robust enough for that then why would you not be able to use some sort of progressive staking system? A trailing stop can be programmed in x-feeder. In fact, anything can be programmed in X-feeder, it might be a bit awkward sometimes but with a bit of thought, it will do anything you require. It goes without saying that If you create a complex set of conditions and triggers then make sure you test it very well. I hope this helps and good luck |
|
By:
Ignore anything Falconbelgium posted - he was just a scammer whose last thread was removed by BF.
|
|
By:
Progressive staking is simply basing your bets on past results.
That is the stakes only progress if and when certain conditions have been met, which conditions always seem to relate to events that have happened. Consequently it can never work. The only way to vary stakes is to have a staking system that is related to an underlying flat betting strategy. That is, you must have a winning flat stake system first, before you can progress to varying your stakes. Some staking plans ( eg Kelly) can improve a flat staking strategy. However, in themselves, they cannot turn a losing strategy into a winning one. |
|
By:
Grunweld wrote:
Ignore anything Falconbelgium posted - he was just a scammer whose last thread was removed by BF. Grunweld, why exactly did Betfair remove his threads? |
|
By:
Deus Ex Machina wrote:
... but nzbot and FalconBelgium both seem to have found winning systems that don't rely on any progression whatsoever ... My system indeed relies on a staking plan. But it's not a progressive one, it's kind of Kelly staking. The stake size depends on "cross game value". |
|
By:
Oh cross game value.
That makes everything crystal clear and understandable. How obvious when you think about it. Er just a small question if I may. What on earth is this " magic " value, which decides your staking ? Or is that something for you to know and for us to try to find out by our lonesomes ? |
|
By:
NZBOt
BF removed FB's threads because he was a low life scammer. |
|
By:
Thanks for all the replies so far, You guys are great!
Dear nzbot, I too am interested in knowing what You exactly mean by "cross game value". If You could enlighten us all on this one I would be greatly appreciating it. Thank You! |
|
By:
Yes we are great aren't we ?.
Thank you for saying so. You're a scholar and a gentleman. What a nice polite forum we have going here on Xgames. Just lovely. |
|
By:
NZbot's cross game value, must be just a different name for "law of averages". I doubt if he will enlighten you as to exactly what he means.
|
|
By:
Yeah but you have to admit it does have a nice buzz word ring about it.
|
|
By:
My system also uses something that could be described as,
|
|
By:
" I think the most important part of all this is to devise a method of stopping as many losing runs as possible ---- "
Well I never. |
|
By:
Do you have something constructive to add?
|
|
By:
Not to that complete hogwash you posted I'm afraid to say.
Btw are you a dreamer or a scammer ? |
|
By:
I thought you had declared this to be a "polite" thread.
|
|
By:
I'm being very polite considering.
|
|
By:
To the frogy man/woman
|
|
By:
Funny but I was thinking the same thing about you.
Whatever. |
|
By:
DEM,
You have probably already found out why I don't normally post on here because of the negative responses. I have been in this game a long time, and a lot of responses are incorrect or misleading. You are on the right lines. I had the problem a long time ago of trying to switch between modes, but then realised it wasn't necessary after the 'Limit the liability of any bet....' option was introduced . Use this to achieve the same result. If you have things set right this will not need to be set to more than £20, and minimum bets are all that is required. If you go for bigger stakes, you will get hit harder by hardware or site failures. You now have to pick the correct game, and it isn't poker. You will be able to safely achieve around £110 to £ 130 per day (theoretically up to £150). The choice of game is the biggest decision you have to make. Clue: it's not a mainstream game. Flat staking will never work long term ( say 12 months + ) because the odds are mathematically perfect. Combining it with auto-greenup leads to a lingering death. That's not an opinion, it's a mathematical certainty. Intelligent progressive staking permits a whole new way of play that flat staking cannot achieve. |
|
By:
Thanks for that informative contribution Petera, just to keep the polite tone going.
But why so reluctant to state the game you are playing? I suspect it is Omaha and, if so, that game has so little matched that I thought you would benefit from increased action. |
|
By:
Why can this chappie not make more than 130 quid a day?
Is it because BF as a mkt. making bot will not take his bets ? I don't think so. So why ? |
|
By:
All quiet on the western front ?
|