When mentioning MG, most people immediately think of either a scenario as TJPLD describes or, more likely, the practice of doubling each consecutive losing bet until a final win. Then two separate arguments ensue and are challenged and defended in the same debate.
I agree with TJPLDs idea of building positions in increments as it utilizes the concept of "averaging in". Most stock traders would agree. Your positions will be paid for at neither the best or worst price.
On the other side of the proverbial coin, if the trading method has no edge, I go along with Hanover and don't believe any method of MM will turn it positive. A well defined MM combined with a losing method, will give you nicely managed losses.
In the end, you need a small edge, and need to exploit it over and over. And consistent MM will prevent you from going too far in on any single trade and possibly mucking up your small edge.
I wish I had known magicchance when I lived in Reno. There was a handful of people who made their living in the casinos, so it seems he may know something we don't.
I agree with TJPLDs idea of building positions in increments as it utilizes the concept of "averaging in". Most stock traders would agree. Your positions will be paid for at neither the best or worst price.
On the other side of the proverbial coin, if the trading method has no edge, I go along with Hanover and don't believe any method of MM will turn it positive. A well defined MM combined with a losing method, will give you nicely managed losses.
In the end, you need a small edge, and need to exploit it over and over. And consistent MM will prevent you from going too far in on any single trade and possibly mucking up your small edge.
I wish I had known magicchance when I lived in Reno. There was a handful of people who made their living in the casinos, so it seems he may know something we don't.