Stoploss

[ignatus]

Can some experienced player explain the concept of stoploss, and what is a good stoploss?? (For playing real Live-roulette in casinos??)

[Colbster]

A stop-loss is a trailing a figure that allows you to retain a portion of your bankroll that increases with wins, theoretically locking in a gain or lessening a loss after a positive period.  It is widely used by investors.  There is no correct stop-loss, as each method of betting will have its own particular volatility.  A stop-loss that is too close can stop you out of profitable periods unnecessarily but too loose a stop-loss serves very little purpose.

Let's say you have 500 chips walking into a casino for a night.  You want to have dinner, enjoy several tables, get some drinks, and chat up some lovely ladies over the course of the night.  It makes sense for you to not want to lose all your money in a quick single session so you decide that you will use a trailing stop-loss of 100 chips per session.

At the beginning of the first session, you hit a particularly favorable streak of luck and you move up to 530 units.  Your trailing stop-loss has also moved up 30 units, so you will now stop your session at 430 and put the 30 in your other pocket, never to be bet this visit.  If you gradually move up further, maybe to 550, your stop loss moves up to 450 and you can only lose 100 units to your session high, not to your beginning bankroll.  If all turns terrible and you bust, you have lost 50 units of your original 100 and retained 50 thanks to your trailing stop-loss.

If your session goes straight to crap, you still stop at 400 and take the loss you had already figured.  However, if you have a great run up to 630 before it turns nasty, you would stop out at 530 units and protect not only your original bankroll, but also a small profit.  Each bettor will have different tolerances and put their stop-loss at different levels beneath their current stake.  Some like tight stops to minimize losses at the risk of more frequent realized losses while others will accept fewer profits and greater losses to loosen up the game and have longer stretches of play.

Like I mentioned, there will be greater swings of variance in some methods than in others.  Thus, there is no "right" stop-loss.  Considering the charts that people post to determine what the largest expected downturns to a method might be seems like a solid way of determining an appropriate stop-loss for a given play style.

[NextYear]

This explanation should be quoted in books!

Thanks Colbster!

[FreeRoulette]

Stop-loss is the amount that you will lose from your highest winning point.

Lets say you win 100 and say to yourself, that you will keep betting, but if you lose $10 you are out.
Next bet you win 20 and now have 120 that your highest so far, so if your winnings drop to 110 you are out.
If you win to 125, then your new stop loss level is 115, $10 buck lower than your highest.

[TurboGenius]

A simple answer is that it is nonsense and shouldn't be worked into a method/system.
Almost some sort of fallacy - If you're in a relay race and you tell yourself that "if I get to 4th place in the race I'll stop running" Then obviously you will never win that race. You theoretically could still have won - but you stopped running because some made up rule forced you to stop the race when you reached a certain place.
Investors may use it - because investing is not 'random'.
There is also not a house edge with investing - you don't start in some uphill battle for profit.
Anyway - laughs. No one wants to hear that.
It sounds better to call it some safety net that protects your bankroll - because that's appealing
to someone who doesn't want to lose what they have.
When you're losing and hit that imaginary point and get up from the table - the next spin your "bet" would have won and put you into profit again... think to yourself how that 'stop loss' exit point helped. At least you'll have something in your pocket ? That's not how winners think.

[RouletteGhost]

A simple answer is that it is nonsense and shouldn't be worked into a method/system.
Almost some sort of fallacy - If you're in a relay race and you tell yourself that "if I get to 4th place in the race I'll stop running" Then obviously you will never win that race. You theoretically could still have won - but you stopped running because some made up rule forced you to stop the race when you reached a certain place.
Investors may use it - because investing is not 'random'.
There is also not a house edge with investing - you don't start in some uphill battle for profit.
Anyway - laughs. No one wants to hear that.
It sounds better to call it some safety net that protects your bankroll - because that's appealing
to someone who doesn't want to lose what they have.
When you're losing and hit that imaginary point and get up from the table - the next spin your "bet" would have won and put you into profit again... think to yourself how that 'stop loss' exit point helped. At least you'll have something in your pocket ? That's not how winners think.

I think calling a stoploss nonsense is dangerous advice

No matter who you are theres a point to stop to limit losses ... ..

this is your opinion only

[TurboGenius]

I think calling a stoploss nonsense is dangerous advice

No matter who you are theres a point to stop to limit losses ... ..

this is your opinion only

I rarely have opinions. When I do though I keep them to myself

[Steve]

A system either works or doesnt. Stopping after a bit of luck doesnt at all affect long term results. 1000 players all using the same strategy will result in combined loss. You might be the 48% who won, or the 52% who lost. The casino doesnt give a crap who was who.

[ignatus]

A system either works or doesnt. Stopping after a bit of luck doesnt at all affect long term results.

We all know, the longer you play, the greater the chance for losses... I mean no longterm winning system is invented yet, therefore "Stopping after a bit of luck" would sure improve the result....(?)

[RouletteGhost]

Having a stoploss is no right or wrong answer and is personal preference

[Steve]

If you have profited and never intend to play again, then quit while youre ahead. But if you intend to play again, you are exposed to the house edge again and may lose all your profits from before. So a system based on stop loss is for tourists in vegas, not people who intend to earn ongoing profits.

Fact is not personal preference. Neither is opinion. Is the solution to a mathematical equation an opinion?

[RouletteGhost]

Some people play the same method all the time

Win more sessions then lose. And are ahead because a stoploss is used

Its personal preference, lets not get too ridiculous

[The General]

Reasons for the stop loss in games where the player may have the advantage:

1. The player perceives a change in the playing conditions that may effect his ability to win.
2. The X factor, a change that may have an effect but that's currently unknown.  Stopping enables the player to step back, and track in order to see if the current draw down is the result of a physical change or possibly just variance. 

In the random game where the player doesn't have the edge:

1. The stop loss has no value because there is no "right time to quit"
2. Nothing happens in between sessions that will enable the player to magically return and win.
3. It's not possible to side step variance by watching on the sidelines.
4. Money management/ stop losses don't have an effect on the house edge.

[KTFPissa]

Reasons for the stop loss in games where the player may have the advantage:

1. The player perceives a change in the playing conditions that may effect his ability to win.
2. The X factor, a change that may have an effect but that's currently unknown.  Stopping enables the player to step back, and track in order to see if the current draw down is the result of a physical change or possibly just variance. 

In the random game where the player doesn't have the edge:

1. The stop loss has no value because there is no "right time to quit"
2. Nothing happens in between sessions that will enable the player to magically return and win.
3. It's not possible to side step variance by watching on the sidelines.
4. Money management/ stop losses don't have an effect on the house edge.

Herb's definition here is the best possible definition for stop loss. Most of us do not understand that it is not possible to side step variance as one would defend volatility in financial markets.

[Still]

I agree with Priyanka that, at least with a flat bet, there is no such thing as a stop loss.  In that case, there is no change from when you stop, to when you start again.  Something has to change between the stop and the restart.  Its arguable that the conditions in roulette never change, the house always having x% edge.  If that's the case, the main change can only be the size of your bet.  So, for example, if you are betting +1/-1 then a "stop loss" could be a rule that whenever you get up to 4 units, you quit, accept the "loss", and reset to a 1 unit start bet. 

Colbster's description applies to directional plays, such as trend following.  He describes whats called a "trailing stop".  After a "stop", another decision is made on the direction of the trend. 

Following hot numbers is a form of trend following.  When you say you will bet on a hot number for 12 spins, well, THAT is your stop loss.  When you change from following one hot number to another, THAT is a form of stop loss.   Something has changed.  The size of your bet has changed to ZERO on the previous hot number.   

Your question, then, is more about what might be called a bankroll related stop loss.  There are two types of bankroll related stop-loss:

  1) one that follows a trend in the "market"
  2) one that follows a trend in your "equity" (bankroll)


Long story short, for "stop loss" to make sense, you have to come up with trend following scenarios for roulette, or what might be called variance following scenarios.  Either your opinion about direction has to change, or the size of your bet has to change in order for there to be a "stop loss". 

In flat-betting, you can only stop betting and observe what happens when you are stopped. Ideally then, changing conditions (triggers) might call for you to start flat-betting again.  The main thing here is the size of your base-unit relative to your bankroll.   You would be STOPPED if your base-unit size was too large to begin with. Otherwise, you would not really stop. 

Determining a base-unit size depends on looking at a lot of data, and again, only makes sense if you somehow stand a chance over the long haul, somehow defying the house edge. 

Again, determining stop loss limits depends on looking at a lot of data given a positive outcome scenario.  I doubt the size of a stop loss could be the difference between winning and losing (a lot of data could determine that), but could well increase performance if you have a winning way of following trends (which may also include a winning way of leveraging or avoiding "chop").