View Full Version : Staking Plan
Mad Gambler
22nd July 2007, 04:42 PM
I have noticed every now then a horse that is odds on before they jump finishes up at $2 most of the time. Sometimes It's between $2.20 and $2.50
Durnig my test on paper there have been 25 such bets for 12 winners and 17 places.
Outlay: $25.00
Return: $54.90
What would be a suitable staking for the win betting?
I have considered the following. 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55. You stop afer a winner. And a winner any where would make a profit. No need to get greedy.
mad gambler
partypooper
22nd July 2007, 05:15 PM
G'day Mad. presumably the $54.90c is for an EW outlay of $50 ? I think your idea of a staking plan is sound, almost a bet to nothing I would say. i.e. you couldn't do much harm.
Silver_and_sand
23rd July 2007, 12:44 PM
G'day Mad Gambler. Let's take a look at what you're considering. Your strike rate for the win is 48%. Looking at your series of proposed bets, you've allowed for a streak of 9 losers in a row, with the 10th loser wiping out your bank. I wonder if you've ever been to a casino. The roulette wheel comes to mind. If someone were to bet on red, black, odds or evens they would have roughly a 48.64% chance of winning, which is similar to what your system is achieving. I've only been a casino a handful of times, and I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a series of 10 or more losers up come up on the board in regards to if one had been betting on red, black, odds or evens. Essentially what I'm saying is, yes the majority of the time you will hit a winner within your series of progressive bets, but it only takes one run of 10 losers to lose the bank. I'd recommend against any kind of progressive betting. It might win in the short term, but eventually it will wipe out your bank. If you interested in developing a system, I think you would really be better off not considering favourites. Just my thoughts. Good luck, regardless.
partypooper
23rd July 2007, 06:58 PM
Silver_and_sand, mathes 100 % correct of course, as the method though shows better than 1/1 money return surely the odds over a long long period couldn't do any harm whether you used levels or a progression? I mean if you used the progression you would have say 400 bets @ 1 unit, say about 300 bets a @ 2 units etc etc etc all with a 48% win S/R at ave odds of about 2.25.
Silver_and_sand
23rd July 2007, 11:50 PM
Betting level stakes with Mad Gambler's system would be safe assuming the strike rate and average price are consistant, but pretty pointless as far as I can tell. If $2.25 is the assumed average price of a winner at a 48% strike rate then level stakes betting would result in only an 8% profit, which seems fairly low really, though some might be happy with that. Realistically, the 48% strike rate seems quite high, and most likely is just an anomaly, especially considering that it is the result of only 25 paper bets. Mad Gambler needs to monitor his system on paper much longer so he can establish what the long term strike rate and average price really are. If the long term strike rate drops to 44% or less, or if the average price drops to $2.08 or less, then the system will lose money in the long run even at level stakes.
I'm not sure I entirely follow what Mad Gambler is saying regarding his staking idea. He says a winner anywhere in the series makes a profit. Unless there's something I'm not understanding, using the 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55 sequence, assuming an average price of $2.25 means that any winner after 3 or more consecutive losing bets will result in a loss.
Bet #1. 1 unit. If win, then profit = 1.25 units. If lose, then total loss = 1
Bet #2. 1 unit. If win, then profit = 0.25 units. If lose, then total loss = 2
Bet #3. 2 units. If win, then profit = 0.50 units. If lose, then total loss = 4
Bet #4. 3 units. If win, then loss = 0.25 units. If lose, then total loss = 7
Bet #5. 5 units. If win, then loss = 0.75 units. If lose, then total loss = 12
Bet #6. 8 units. If win, then loss = 2.00 units. If lose, then total loss = 20
Bet #7. 13 units. If win, then loss = 3.75 units. If lose, then total loss = 33
Bet #8. 21 units. If win, then loss = 6.75 units. If lose, then total loss = 54
Bet #9. 34 units. If win, then loss = 11.5 units. If lose, then total loss = 88
Bet #10. 55 units. If win, then loss = 19.25 units. If lose, then bank is lost.
And to work out how often one would expect to bust their bank with this system, the calculation would be 0.52 multiplied by itself 10 times = 0.0014555, which would be roughly once in every 687 bets, though there's no reason why 2 series of 10 straight losers couldn't occur within a few dozen bets of each other.
I hope all this makes sense. I'd suggest steering clear of progressive betting, as sooner or later, the unexpected run of outs will occur and bust the bank, and your confidence. Again, just my thoughts, and good luck if you decide otherwise.
Usurper
24th July 2007, 11:28 AM
Everyone seems to say that the progressive stakes method will kill you in the end. Fair enough, you're all more experienced than I - but how do you get ahead? Once you have accumulated enough units of profit, you would want to change the unit size, to accomodate this. I can see how if things go bad then you'd be done for, but you would want to accelerate profit size, surely?
I really know nothing about staking plans, Im curious.....
partypooper
24th July 2007, 12:23 PM
Silver and sand /Mad, point taken, but [quote] I have noticed every now then a horse that is odds on before they jump finishes up at $2 most of the time. Sometimes It's between $2.20 and $2.50
so maybe the average is nearer to $2.35, and needless to say I was presuming that the S/R etc are consistant.
In short I agree with you, in the long term it's much better on the nerves to be betting levels, or at least say 1% of bank never reducing.
I do think Mad is into an area where there are possibilities though, I've never completed any extensive research but have noticed many cases where a nag is QUOTED odds on (Pre-post) and often wins at a greater odds or where the Top Fluc was much better. food for thought!
AngryPixie
24th July 2007, 12:37 PM
Everyone seems to say that the progressive stakes method will kill you in the end. Fair enough, you're all more experienced than I - but how do you get ahead?
How do you get ahead? By having a selection method that returns a positive advantage at level stakes. Selection plan first, staking second. ;)
Once you have accumulated enough units of profit, you would want to change the unit size, to accomodate this.
If you stake to a % of bank then as your bank grows so would your bet size. You could also look at techniques whereby you stake in accordance to your advantage and the price available on your selection.
Bhagwan
24th July 2007, 01:20 PM
The longest run of outs one should experience is approx 11.
A staking plan that can work with this is the Duel Progression Plan .
It can be used for place & EW betting also.
Use the search bar at the top to find it.
It goes something like this .
1L 1L 2L 2L 3L 3P 5P 7P 9L 9L 10L 10P 12P 14 ect.
Until in profit, then start again.
Cheers.
Silver_and_sand
24th July 2007, 02:32 PM
G'day Usurper. I agree with Angry Pixie. Focus more on developing a system or method or whatever you wish to call it, that can produce a healthy profit over a long period of time. If you can do that, then my guess is that you've achieved something the vast majority of punters will never achieve. Then you can worry about what is the best staking plan.
As Angry Pixie suggests, I too would recommend the percentage of bank staking plan once you have developed a system that can win at level stakes. For instance, if one were to have say an average of 10 to 20 bets every Saturday, then maybe consider wagering for example 1% of the bank on each selection for that day. Let's assume a starting bank of $1,000, and a bet size of $10, which is 1% of the bank, on each of your selections. At the end of the day, say your bank has increased to $1,100, then the next Saturday your standard bet size would be 1% of $1,100, or $11 on each selection. If at the end of the day, if your bank decreased to say $900, then your next betting outing would see the standard bet size fall to $9, which is 1% of the bank, on each selection (though I believe some people prefer to never decrease the bet size for the next day of betting if they run into a losing day - to each his own). Clear as mud?
G'day Partypooper. I'm not arrogant enough to say that it would be impossible to develop a system centered around short-priced favourites that can win long term, it's just that I can't think how without putting the bank at a very real risk of busting. Good luck to you though if you do find a way.
G'day Bhagwan. I don't recall ever conversing with you in the past, but I've noted that you've often presented progressive, loss-chasing, staking plans. Nothing personal, I just believe sooner or later, the unforeseen run of outs will come, and bust the bank. I'd rather play things a little safer by using the percentage of bank staking plan. I hope your progressive staking plans work for you though, and I wish you luck mate.
Usurper
24th July 2007, 04:45 PM
Thanks for those replies guys - yes that's what the sort of progression Im looking at - when the bank increases, increase the bet sizes.
Completely agree with the method before betting plan, which is why Im asking about the betting, not sure about how to go forward, but it looks like Im on the right track.
I think I misunderstood progressive betting - it must mean betting different amounts depending on whether the last bet won/lost etc, rather than moving up (progressing) the $ amounts, as the bank increases.
Cheers again.
jfc
24th July 2007, 05:07 PM
I think I misunderstood progressive betting - it must mean betting different amounts depending on whether the last bet won/lost etc, rather than moving up (progressing) the $ amounts, as the bank increases.
Cheers again.
"Progression betting" is simply a euphemism for loss-chasing.
As is nearly every other fancy staking plan.
partypooper
24th July 2007, 06:25 PM
Silver_and_sand, G'day again, I must say all this dialogue is good, though I'm not sure who you are mixing me up with, hang on I'll quote myself [In short I agree with you, in the long term it's much better on the nerves to be betting levels, or at least say 1% of bank never reducing.
I do think Mad is into an area where there are possibilities though, I've never completed any extensive research but have noticed many cases where a nag is QUOTED odds on (Pre-post) and often wins at a greater odds or where the Top Fluc was much better. food for thought!]
If my mathes is correct I'd need a losing run of 100 to bust the bank wouldn't I? (still presuming 48%S/R and even 8% POT)
Silver_and_sand
24th July 2007, 10:13 PM
G'day Partypooper. Sorry, I might have gotten things mixed up by replying to several people in the same post. I think I was assuming you thought progressive betting on short-priced favourites held possibilities. I understand now that you were really talking about using 1% of the bank per such selection, non-reducing.
Honestly, I don't think the 48% strike rate will hold up over an extended period, and if that's the case, then it's unlikely such a selection method would be capable of producing a profit at level stakes, and therefore betting it even at 1% of the bank would bust the bank in the long run, though granted it would hold up for quite a long time. You wouldn't actually need a streak of 100 losers though to bust the bank using the percentage of bank staking plan. For instance, you could even have 3 winners with an average price of $2.50 for every 10 selections, while betting 1% of the bank on each selection, non-reducing, and you would still eventually bust the bank. For example:
Assume bank of $1,000. 1% bet on each selection, non-reducing. Winner's average price is $2.50. Assume 20 selections per day.
Day 1. $10 x 20 selections = $200 out. 6 winners x $2.50 = $150 in. New Bank = $950.
Day 2. $10 x 20 selections = $200 out. 6 winners x $2.50 = $150 in. New Bank = $900.
Day 3. $10 x 20 selections = $200 out. 6 winners x $2.50 = $150 in. New Bank = $850.
...
So you can still have several winners, and end up breaking the bank in the long run while betting percentage of bank, non-reducing.
The reason why I like the percentage of bank staking plan though is that as long as you have a system that achieves a profit at level stakes, betting a percentage of the bank will end up far out-performing level stakes, and if and when your system manages to stumble into a losing streak, the system is relatively forgiving compared to progressive stakes betting, and hopeful will protect your bank long enough for your system to find it's feet again.
Realistically, I just think Mad Gambler's 48% strike rate will fall considerably the longer he monitors, and if that's the case, then it will lose in the long run even using percentage of bank staking.
Hope this clears things up. Let us know what you find out if you decide to research pre-post odds-on favourites that end up returning better than odds-on prices. Have a good one, mate.
partypooper
24th July 2007, 11:19 PM
Silver_and_sand, yeah I know mate, but that got a bit too hard to go into, I often think of that when I see the Retirement Plan outlined, i.e. built to withstand a run of 48 losers, mmmmm! what about a run of 30 losers followed by a $1.50 winner followed by ???????????? anyway yes I agree with all you've said really, I was just supplying feedback PRESUMING a 48% sustainded S/R and 8% POT.
As far as Pre-post odds on etc. yes well, no stats to go on, but I'd take a stab that you would be pretty well break even , "if" backed at Top Fluc, and with a few filters .......... who knows.
Though your Graph, interesting but with a 48% S/R of course you would AVAERAGE 9.6 winners per 20 selections winners not 6 , if you only averaged 6 @ $2.50 i.e. LOT of 25%, well you wouldn't be in business for long would you?
Silver_and_sand
25th July 2007, 10:31 AM
Good Morning Partypooper. A 48% strike rate just seems way too high. I don't ever recall seeing such a high strike rate, and so I would think it has to be just an anomaly given that it was based on only 25 paper bets.
You mentioned the retirement staking plan. I actually looked at that a few weeks ago, and thought I'd look over my system's selections for this year, to see how it would have performed compared to my percentage of bank staking (I actually use 2% of the bank per selection). At one point, the retirement staking plan would've come within 3 bets of wiping out the bank, which was after experiencing a horrid run of just 3 winners from 64 selections, and although there were nine 2nds and eleven 3rds in those 64 selections, I only bet the win. By comparison, the percentage of bank staking has never ever ventured even remotely close to busting the bank. That said, the retirement staking plan would have ended up with triple the bank that my percentage of bank has achieved, even despite that horrid run, which is interesting to know, but I guess I'd rather go with the safer staking plan for a little security and peace of mind.
partypooper
25th July 2007, 03:13 PM
Morning Men/women, just for the benefit of all, have any of you stats blokes got an answer for S&S there, I would have thought that 48% S/R for horses quoted odds on was about right? anyone know for sure?
Silver_and_sand
25th July 2007, 08:05 PM
I know it's not what you're realing asking for Partypooper (I don't know what the pre-post prices were today), but I just thought I'd mention that of the 12 favourites priced at $2.50 or less that raced today (according to tabonline.com.au anyway), only 2 of them won.
partypooper
25th July 2007, 08:26 PM
S&S, wow that's bad but I remeber someone posting the other saturday when 30 odd won from 40 odd so there you go.
But I do rememeber from some research I did do a few years ago; say take favs (all favs) the S/R hovers around 31% the LOT about 12-15%, then take the Pre-post fav for the same period, RESULT almost identical , even though the horses differed in some cases (either way)
Then if you only took those quoted at $2.50 or less S/R improved slightly directly in line with a tighter Divi .in asliding scale down to 1-1, here S/R was up there high forties with a LOT nearer to 5-6% that's from memory, but I'm sure that's close.
So I reckon 1-1 or less would produce around 48% S/R,
Any help on this one Wes/Bhagwan maybe?
Bhagwan
26th July 2007, 04:40 PM
Hi S&S,
It looks like the stats will not be denied & a run like that is to be expected at some stage according to the stats.
The possibbility of a horror run is usually reduced if one targets the first 4 races only, this is usually because of the slightly smaller fields.
The run of outs seems to be reduced for some reason if the 2nd Fav in the field is in barrier 8 or more in 1400m races & less.
Cheers.
vBulletin v3.0.3, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.