My previous post which focused on a comment by Peter Webb on his blog, has struck a chord with many people. I've had lots of comments, both here and on Twitter, the latest of which came from the man himself. So I felt it would be of interest to my readers to take a closer look and allow me to respond in greater detail:
First of all Peter, thanks for your comments and taking the time to respond. I can't help but find this first paragraph just a little patronising though! I have been trading tennis for 3 years now and although I admit the first 18 months were spent mostly in the dark doing the wrong things, I'm pretty certain that I don't need any 'enlightenment' these days (though I appreciate the offer and may well take you up on that coffee if you can change it to a decaf tea!). That's not to say there is nothing left to learn and improve upon but I consider myself experienced enough to know the differing ways that a tennis market can be traded. I thought your insight into how you trade was very clear, especially on this particular game. You backed Wawrinka, greened up and then put some of the green on Djokovic. I didn't trade this match but if I had done, that is almost exactly what I would have done too.
There was almost no way you could lose using that strategy on this match (but only because it fit YOUR strategy). At a guess, I would say that this is what you meant by your comments that I picked out. I did illustrate in my original post that it IS still possible to end up red by doing this. This is because it will depend on a) How much green you made when you backed Wawrinka/layed Djokovic b) How much of that green you used to back Djokovic and c) How long you stayed in the market when Djokovic's price went back out and over evens. Maybe that is all a bit pedantic but the whole point of my original post was that you claimed that it was impossible to lose no matter what ANY trader did (you were not talking about yourself specifically) and that simply isn't true.
Again, a tad patronising Peter! Perhaps some of those people who commented don't understand that you can churn over your profits in order to place risk free bets and trades (or at least lower risk ones), throughout the match but I thought I made it clear in my analysis that I understood this and it is something I do too. But just because you can keep churning over your profits, cutting bad positions and re-entering to nullify reds, it doesn't mean that you are going to make the 'correct' decisions every time. Your reds can get bigger, just as your greens can.
The main problem I had was with the one paragraph where you said:
I'm sure you will acknowledge that this is not true because, as I went to great lengths to prove in my original post, everyone has different entry and exit points, so even if their basic strategy was the same as yours, it doesn't mean they would end in profit. So to say it was 'perfect trading characteristics' and 'you couldn't lose' comes across as though you are trying to make profiting on tennis trading seem simple, no matter what you did.If traders did EXACTLY what you did, they couldn't lose! But most traders will not have done exactly the same. As you say, doesn't make either them or you, right or wrong. But it doesn't change the fact you did say "It was another match, where if you were trading, you couldn’t lose" and it is this line in particular that I think has annoyed a lot of people, especially when you tie it in with the fact that you do have products to sell which would benefit from you making tennis trading seem easy.
You say "perhaps you should be asking yourself why I would say something like that?"Well I've been doing exactly that and I still don't really understand why you would say something like that! I've spoken to other, equally experienced traders about your post and they all agree that just because a match swings back and forth, providing lots of opportunities, it doesn't mean we can't end up with huge all-red screens after 4 hours! Maybe it is just your choice of words that is the problem and if that is the case, now is your chance to perhaps explain what you did really mean because it's not just me who is confused.
I have often wanted to comment on your posts but have never been able to do so as they've always been closed off (maybe I need to be a member?). If I'd been able to, I would never have written a blog post in the first place! Over to you, Peter :)
Sloane Stephens:
![]()
"Sorry guys, but you have got the wrong end of the stick. Just because you trade differently to me doesn’t mean either of us are right or wrong, but perhaps you should be asking yourself why I would say something like that? It may give you an insight into how I trade? Sultan, if you live near us you are welcome to pop in for a coffee and some enlightenment."
First of all Peter, thanks for your comments and taking the time to respond. I can't help but find this first paragraph just a little patronising though! I have been trading tennis for 3 years now and although I admit the first 18 months were spent mostly in the dark doing the wrong things, I'm pretty certain that I don't need any 'enlightenment' these days (though I appreciate the offer and may well take you up on that coffee if you can change it to a decaf tea!). That's not to say there is nothing left to learn and improve upon but I consider myself experienced enough to know the differing ways that a tennis market can be traded. I thought your insight into how you trade was very clear, especially on this particular game. You backed Wawrinka, greened up and then put some of the green on Djokovic. I didn't trade this match but if I had done, that is almost exactly what I would have done too.
There was almost no way you could lose using that strategy on this match (but only because it fit YOUR strategy). At a guess, I would say that this is what you meant by your comments that I picked out. I did illustrate in my original post that it IS still possible to end up red by doing this. This is because it will depend on a) How much green you made when you backed Wawrinka/layed Djokovic b) How much of that green you used to back Djokovic and c) How long you stayed in the market when Djokovic's price went back out and over evens. Maybe that is all a bit pedantic but the whole point of my original post was that you claimed that it was impossible to lose no matter what ANY trader did (you were not talking about yourself specifically) and that simply isn't true.
"I would ask anybody who disagreed with my post to look a little deeper at how you trade. Tennis is a unique sport and you should approach it differently to other sports. Many sports offer the ability to profit, many, many times throughout the event, if you trade; sometimes regardless of your opening position."
Again, a tad patronising Peter! Perhaps some of those people who commented don't understand that you can churn over your profits in order to place risk free bets and trades (or at least lower risk ones), throughout the match but I thought I made it clear in my analysis that I understood this and it is something I do too. But just because you can keep churning over your profits, cutting bad positions and re-entering to nullify reds, it doesn't mean that you are going to make the 'correct' decisions every time. Your reds can get bigger, just as your greens can.
The main problem I had was with the one paragraph where you said:
"This match exhibited perfect trading characteristics again. It was another match, where if you were trading, you couldn’t lose. If you backed the outsider his price shortened considerably. If you backed the favourite he won!"
I'm sure you will acknowledge that this is not true because, as I went to great lengths to prove in my original post, everyone has different entry and exit points, so even if their basic strategy was the same as yours, it doesn't mean they would end in profit. So to say it was 'perfect trading characteristics' and 'you couldn't lose' comes across as though you are trying to make profiting on tennis trading seem simple, no matter what you did.If traders did EXACTLY what you did, they couldn't lose! But most traders will not have done exactly the same. As you say, doesn't make either them or you, right or wrong. But it doesn't change the fact you did say "It was another match, where if you were trading, you couldn’t lose" and it is this line in particular that I think has annoyed a lot of people, especially when you tie it in with the fact that you do have products to sell which would benefit from you making tennis trading seem easy.
"At the end of the day I blog based on personal experience. I know people trying to flog crap post up anything, but each post I make is because I was active on a market and something interesting happened. Interesting enough to think it’s of value enough to talk about it. I did post a nice visualisation for everybody as well BTW."I always read your blog and appreciate your posts because they are based on your own experience. But every single Grand Slam, I read posts claiming that matches were a "trader's dream" and that you "couldn't lose", not just from yourself I should add. I still stand by the fact that a match is only perfect if it fits your trading style and your comments seem pretty clearly to me to suggest that you should be profiting from matches such as Djokovic-Wawrinka no matter what your trading style.
You say "perhaps you should be asking yourself why I would say something like that?"Well I've been doing exactly that and I still don't really understand why you would say something like that! I've spoken to other, equally experienced traders about your post and they all agree that just because a match swings back and forth, providing lots of opportunities, it doesn't mean we can't end up with huge all-red screens after 4 hours! Maybe it is just your choice of words that is the problem and if that is the case, now is your chance to perhaps explain what you did really mean because it's not just me who is confused.
"I do take comments on the blog, but you are also welcome to visit the forum to chat which is where most of my interaction takes place."
I have often wanted to comment on your posts but have never been able to do so as they've always been closed off (maybe I need to be a member?). If I'd been able to, I would never have written a blog post in the first place! Over to you, Peter :)
Sloane Stephens:
