Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KennyVictor
Averaging a bunch of 2000 bet batches is not SAFE. Look at your 5000 figures for maxDD and count how many times you would have blown your bank at 1%.
|
Hi Kenny,
averaging the figures may not be entirely safe, but it's probably as safe as anything else we're doing around here. :-)
Running my 5000 tests, then all things being equal, there's a little more than a 12% chance of losing the bank if betting 1% of bank.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KennyVictor
I doubt if I'll ever have a million bets either but it gives a more realistic view of what can happen when "Sod's Law" comes in to play.
|
Why don't we go to 1 billion bets then... on one single test, the LRO is 90 and the MaxDD is 460 units. I can tell you right now that there would be very few punters who would keep betting a strategy if they got 90 losers in a row. I would reckon that most punters would ditch a new system if they got 10 or 20 losers in their first 10 or 20 bets..... These sorts of numbers are great for academic purposes, but get thrown out the window in RL.
Should we seriously start betting this strategy with 0.2% of bank? If we did, then I'd need $25,000 to begin with a $50 bet and a chance to actually make serious money.... I'd much rather put that $25,000 to work over a number of strategies...
This is, after all, punting... It's a gamble. I'm in it for the money, and I'm quite prepared to lose a bank on a bad run if it means I can actually make some serious money from it. I only ever bet as low as 1% of bank on longshot systems... My usual percentages are 2%, 2.5% or 3%. (one particular longshot system I run at 1% has already had a maximum drawdown of 87 units.... that was a harrowing time, but it bounced back very nicely indeed)
I also add some other bank saving procedures to my punting... Once I double a bank, I start to slowly syphon my original starting bank out of the pool. This allows me to introduce new methods to my aresenal. I have a number of strategies who's starting banks are in the negative numbers... meaning that I can never lose on those stratgies :-)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gazman
that means at max drawdown you would be betting way more than 1% of your bank,i thought this was all about the reduction of risk....at your rundown what would the% after 26 loses.........cheers,,gazman...
|
Gazman, you are correct in your assertion that I'm betting more than 1% of my *remaining* bank when I'm in the middle of a bad run. However the key to this game is not necessarily about reducing risk. It's about balancing risk and reward. If I'm confident that my bank can ride out the bad run, then I'm prepared to take on the risk involved.
Cheers,
Chris.