I normally find my problem is i dont know when to take the profit thats available which can be 10% roi or do i hang in there and try and make even up to 50 or 100% sometimes?

The Sevilla rangers game i could have got out for 10% when the goal went in but i felt that perhaps 10% isnt worth the original investment, considering losses can be usually around 30-50% when i get it wrong. So i stayed in and in the end did lose 30% since another goal never materialised.

Basically, i am asking with each trade how much % profit do you aim to try and make?

hope this makes sense guys!

Gotta say I struggle big time with this aspect of trading. A classic example in the Sevilla / Rangers game the other night - was on 2-1, 3-0 and 3-1. Early Sev goal, could have taken a small green across the board of about 2.7% of stakes. Alternativley could just have laid the stakes to leave smallish greens on those scorelines.

Did neither, no goal forthcoming, didn't scalp, left with sizeable red!

Human, I don't think there's a straightforward answer to your question - it's down to personal strategy and your view on risk.

What I DO know, if I'm honest with myself, is that not taking small greens (or small reds, for that matter) has cost me plenty over the past year or so that I've been trading seriously.

That STOPS today - I own't get 2.7% a day in a bank!

I know that Badger was fond of pointing out that a 3% daily profit would lead to a doubling of your bank in a month.

As for me I generally trade anything up to 15% of my bank and trade out or punt on depending on what happens during the game. As gundulf says, we are all different...

As an aside I think it's useful to have definitions for terms such as 'return on investment'.

If I have a £100 bank, and I stake £10 and win £20 then to my mind there are two figures:

Return on INVESTMENT = 20% (i.e the return on your TOTAL investment, your bank)

Return on STAKE= 100% (i.e. the return on your actual risk or stake money)

The reason this is important, as those of you in business will appreciate, is that whilst you can have marvellous results in one or two isolated cases it is the total return, relative to the amount you have invested, which indicates your success level.

IMO!

I am not sure if I agree with that definition.

how do you define a return if you are staking in more than an outcome. i.e. in the CS score you use 10% you your bank to cover a few results. and each one has a different stake. I would think that coming out green and calculating the return would be made based in the what was invested in that particular strategy, rather than an individual stake.

unless you define stake as the amount that is on risk, either if is one particular stake or a stake plan.

sorry if this is confusing...

I also have a little bit difficulty of attribution investment to your bank. if you have 100£ in your bank account, you withdraw 10£ and invest those 10£ in something you would calculate the ROI based in what you actually invested and not based on whatever you have left in your bank account...

IMHO

cumps

Ah.... the simple things in life are often the most difficult!

Yes to the first part, return on stake to my mind is the profit/loss on total staked in one market, irrespective of how that is broken down.

Second part - open to debate. If you originally invest £100 and then withdraw £10 your investment is now £90. IMHO you calculate any return on investment from the amount of money you have invested at that particular point in time. I understand what you're saying - if for example you originally invested £100, won £10 and then withdrew your profit and £10 of your original investment where do you calculate from?

That would be a nightmare to keep track of, especially if your trading is successful enough for your to take out all of your original investment and that you are then trading from pure profit! Arguably you no longer have any investment in the true sense of the word, because you're playing with OPM (Other Peoples' Money).

That is why to keep it simple ROI surely has to be return on current bank if it's to be at all meaningful.

IMHO

just a little search on the web (I couldn't resist)

according to investopedia

ROI (return of investment) http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ret ... stment.asp. so it involves the cost of the investment, which I would say is the money at risk (stake or total staked)

ROA (return on Assets) http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnonassets.asp should probably describe better what you proposed to be ROI.

I guess we could say ROB: return on bank. ... lol

Fair play! I'll agree to differ!

The important thing to understand is that there's a big difference between a % on the amount staked and the same % on the total bank!

My 'investment' is the total amount that I place on a particular match...if I trade several matches then it is the total amount I trade on all of those matches. When all of the trades are completed, then whatever I have won/lost is a % of the amount that I traded.

Example: bank = £1,000. Total amount placed on trades = £100. Total amount won when all trades have completed = £110.

I would classify that as a 10% ROI...but it matters not how you define it, as long as you are consistent in how you calaculate it, and know whether or not you are making a profit

Nice post ganda!

I do think i seem to enter trades without a general idea of expected return on investment. which probably leads to making more difficult decisions, whereby the usual emotions such as greed and fear get involved which can lead to all sorts happening

Correct score trading can lead to this as when you put even £10 on odds such as 30 on a 3-2 scoreline and see a green of £310 you do get excited and expect a return of near the same amount if you get it right! In reality we should be happy enough with a return of £5 which is a 50% return on our investment!!

perhaps, when we enter a trade we should have a projected expected profit? and in return a maximum loss?