I gotta chase those losses, don't I?

[shoto]

Can someone tell this beginner why loss-chasing is doomed to fail? I can do all the form I want, but when I bet money on 500 kg animals running around a track I know that some of them simply don't seem to know what I'm expecting of them. But ... if I am confident enough in my form assessment to say that at some point I will win a return, it seems logical to expect the return to provide profit by paying for the previous non-winning tries.

Is it simply the inevitable long losing streak that kills the bank? In other words, apart from this long losing streak, loss-chasing would be fine? (Not trying to be smart here – or stupid – just making a genuine enquiry.) I know roulette systems don't work, but only because if they did everyone would be doing it. When I think about it I have to ask, why don't they?? Is it just the long losing streak?

Whatever the most workable answers to that issue, there seems to remain an unavoidable reality. I have a small bank. The point of the exercise is to make it a big bank. I cannot reasonably expect to maintain a good strike rate betting everything that goes round a track. If I am selective I'll need about 200 years. Therefore I need leverage. Somehow, someway, I need leverage.
Looking for enlightenment.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: shoto on 2003-07-07 21:10 ]</font>

[partypooper]

G'Day Shoto, without a doubt (take a tip) it is definitely the losing run that will kill it.
taking the opportunity to reminis here but you may get something out of it. I operated a cover to win system in England successfully for over 2 years and thought I was set for life, but of course the inevitable happened "a horror run" I lost all I'd won plus the bank plus more besides.
The staking plan was sound, aiming to win a set amount per race + the previous losses, betting race to race at the principle meeting , following on from day to day. The in built saftey brake was to count any runner under 3/1 AS 3/1, (the particular method of selection included Fav's but also all prices up to 33/1)eg.
Race, SP. Aim. Stake. Res. W/L. To recover
1 5/1 $10 $2 L -$2 $12
2 1/1 $22 $8 W +$8 $14
3 4/1 $24 $6 L -$6 $30
4 8/1 $40 $5 W +$40 nil
5 2/1 $10 $4 L etc etc

This was the basic plan but I refined it later to spread the risk much more and built in reserve banks etc. all of which I can outline if there's any interest?

In my case the selection method fell in a heap, and I never recovered. Though I've thought afterwards that I should have had 2 or 3 banks available, with a maximum bank to lose on any progression, so that in the event of a horror run, you would lose 1 bank but not get cleaned out (hopefully)

[partypooper]

that table didnt print correctly, you shpuld be able to follow it, otherwise IF you have any interest I can e-mail a spreadsheet, other wise I will just crawl back in my corner

[jfc]

Any rational person should realise that no staking plan can turn a negative expectation game into a winning one.

But it took me a long while before I proved to myself why bad staking plans can ruin positive expectation games.

First note that you have no control over luck so the best you can expect in the long run is average luck.

Consider a simple fair, even, binary game such as a coin toss.

Assume you bet 50% of your bank. So after each toss you bank multiplies by either 0.5 or 1.5.

With average luck you would have an equal number of wins and losses. Order is irrelevant.

So your most likely bank after 2 games is 0.5*1.5 = 0.75 * B (your original bank) .

For n games your bank would most likely decay to B * 0.75^(n/2) .


Now even if you were to get a 33% bonus ("edge") for winning, you would still not break even.

If you change the key parameters in this simple example you should get a feel for what your optimum bet to bank ratio should be for any winning edge.


Or instead you could look up the Kelly staking formula which gives you a similar approximate result. Trouble is Kelly derived it for an entirely different application, and using that won't help you understand what you're doing.

[Shaun]

I can't say why they loose but in my experience they do there are only two kinds of stakeing that i would recomend to anybody level stakes and percentage of bank.

Percentage of bank is the best if you want your bank to grow.
Some people say that the retirement stakeing plan is the best stakeing plan around because it uses your average price winners to determin your stake.
The truth is if you want a large bank you have to save it or risk a small bank to create a large bank...the question remains what size bank do you need to have to make a decent return each week.
How does $500 sound tax free...you would still need to work but an extra $500 dollars to play with would be nice.
Lets look at it like this if you could get 10% t.o.p you would need to turn over $5000 a week to get $500 now if you have 10 bets a week that means your are betting $500 a selection now if we are betting to a percentage of bank say 2% you would need a bank of $25000 to start a lot of people say you need 4 times your estimate to be safe thats $100.000 but with $25000 you can make $500 a week and with i higher t.o.p you can make even more.

[partypooper]

jfc, Couldn't agree more "any rational person etc. etc)at the age that I tried the cover to win I certainly wasn't "Rational" but I've mellowed with age.

Now, (as I am constantly saying) level stakes is the acid test always, but it has been proven many times that where a method of selection produces a level stakes profit that profit can be increased by the application of a staking plan.Even a % of bank IS a staking plan of course.

The other thing that I really believe is that "hit and Run" tactics can also produce a substantial profit. In other words making a killing from a good run (as we all know the winners seem to come in clumps "SOMETIMES") BUT with a fairly conservative "cop out" ie as soon as a certain level of the bank is gone , strat again with a fresh bank, always chasing that "Clump" very hap hap hazzard I know, and an approch that requires infinite patience. To explain lets say a progression of bets produced the following result (freak) w3/1, L, L, w8/1 L, L, w2/1, w12/1, w 6/1, say a starting bank of $30, betting 1/3 of bank never decreasing, the bank stands at $2700, after 9 bets, say you have a "aim to win" (or Goal) of $2000 so STOP now and start again with $30 bank. In the event of insufficient funds to stake the 3 rd bet, then either quit and start again (pocketing and residual) or just satke the residual on the 3rd bet etc etc. This is only an example only, the stake could be a matter of choice i.e. 1/4 bank, or 1/5th bank etc. but with the aim to be hit and run, reverting back to the basic bank after reaching the goal.(which also can be a matter of choice)

[DR RON]

partypooper,

could you e-mail me your staking plan,
I couldn't quite follow it!!!

thanks DR Ron
my email is thedoctor6469@hotmail.com

[DR RON]

Thanks Partypooper