Ozzie One Step plan

[hermes]

From the Turf Accountant website I've mentioned in other posts, a simple loss chasing scheme. The Turf Accountant writes:


THE OZZIE ONE STEP PLAN

Most - not all, good staking Plans are simple, and this is one of the simplest.

It is a win only Plan, and it is in the category of loss chasers.

It requires a marginal long term Win POT, just 1% will do, in fact it can turn marginal long
term losses into profits.

Just bet one unit for a win.

If the bet loses increase stake by one until win struck, that is in a losing streak bet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8, when a win is struck revert the odds.
This means that if you are at an 8 unit bet and you have a 3/1 winner the next bet is 8 units (the last bet) minus 3 (the odds of the winner ) = 5.
If the bets require an outlay of 10 or more units then revert twice the odds on a winner until
below 10 again.

for example our next bet is 5 units as above we strike 7 more losers and then a 5/1 winner the bet sequence is:

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (5/1 winner) next bet 12 - 5x2 = 2 units.

---------

I trialled it on paper over 100 races selecting favourites. Almost broke even but after a gruelling run of outs. Simple plan but has all the shortcomings of any loss chasing scheme. Anyone know this scheme?

[Equine Investor]

hermes I use something very similar to this.

I have modified it to suit my systems.

Forget chasing losses by doubling up. That is disaster waiting to happen. My advice, if your system doesn't win at level stakes then a staking plan will bust your bank - sooner or later!

Staking plans increase risk but if your system is solid with level stakes profits, you can really convert say a 20% profit into a huge percentage...over a period of time.

The part I like about a plan like this, is that you really are chasing losses, but over a number of winning bets - rather than trying to make up the shortfall with the very next bet.

Also hermes don't bet more than 1% of your bank to start with especially with an increasing staking plan such as this.

Hope my advice is useful in some way.

[Big Orange]

Hermes,

The Ozzie One Step plan is a rabid dog. Adding one unit after every loss and regressing the value of the odds after a win is just another version of the age-old d'Alembert slow moving progression. D'Alembert was around in the 18th century so it's hardly anything new.

Level stakes or betting-to-prices are both sensible methods without being dramatic. Any staking plan that escalates bets purely due to immediately previous losses is nonsensical. The true path to profits in racing demands that your long-term average dividend multiplied by your long-term average strike rate (expressed as a percentage) equates to more than 100.

There is no other easy way. Gamblers have been searching for a magical staking plan for centuries without success.

Throw away the Ozzie One Step plan. It will only end in tears.

[Equine Investor]

Big O...

Are you saying that you can't use a staking plan if your system shows a profit at level stakes????

I am really confused!

PROVIDING you show a profit at level stakes, there are many staking plans that work mathematically, as long as you don't start the old double up plan, and know your average price and dividend.

If you really don't believe a staking plan works, you should run some test scenarios as you may be giving away huge potential profits.

P.S. My staking plan is similar, not the same as the above one. I do see some mathematical faults with the above plan.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-23 21:40 ]</font>

[hermes]

An interesting range of views on staking plans. OK, so no staking plan will work unless it gives a profit at flat bets. The idea of raising stakes with every loss seems counter-intuitive. Can anyone provide a win-building system that has the simplicity of the Ozzie One Step?

[Equine Investor]

Try here hermes

http://www.grandstand.com.au/retirement.html

It takes a bit of working out but it is one of the safest around!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-24 00:06 ]</font>

Keep it relatively simple and don't chase loses.

[supersoul]

I understand it this way:

First find yourself a method which makes you a profit betting level stakes.

ONCE you have this, you CAN use staking plans such as discussed here- and it should increase you profits...

The fact to remember is that a staking plan is not the answer for a method which does not make a profit on level betting, BUT it increases profits for your already profitable(even if very modest) level stake betting method!

[Equine Investor]

Well said supersoul!

:wink:

[becareful]

Maybe one of the Staking Plan advocates would like to post a mathematical proof of how a staking plan can increase your profit on turnover because I have never seen one. All the staking plans I have analysed do NOT increase POT in the LONG RUN - they generally do one of two things:

1. Increase POT in short term by "hiding" losses. The old "doubling" plan for roulette is a classic example of this - in the short term your POT is increased because as long as you don't have 10 losses in a row you will make a profit - the problem is when you do get those 10 losses in a row it wipes out all your profits. Most of the staking plans that have no loss limiting built in fall into this category.

2. Increase dollar profits by increasing the bet size until winner is found or loss limit is reached (the 1,3,6,18 plan mentioned by Equine Investor some time ago is an example of this). These do not increase your profit on turnover but create the illusion of higher profits by increasing your average bet size and turnover.

The mistake most people make is to compare what their profit would have been with level stakes betting with 1 unit bets with what they get off a staking plan that STARTS with 1 unit bets. In reality what you should be comparing is the POT figure or what the profit would be with level stakes bets equal to the average staking plan bet. Also you must consider the conseqences of a worst case scenario - eg. 20 straight losses - what would that mean to your staking plan compared to level stakes.

I am not opposed to varying the bet amount depending on the value or winning likelyhood of each bet (eg. if 4 out of 6 criteria met bet 1 unit, 5 out of 6 bet 2 units or 6 out of 6 bet 4 units, etc) - these can make sense and can increase your POT - what doesn't make sense is increasing your bet because the last one lost.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2002-06-26 10:32 ]</font>

[Placegetter]

On 2002-06-26 10:29, becareful wrote:
Maybe one of the Staking Plan advocates would like to post a mathematical proof of how a staking plan can increase your profit on turnover because I have never seen one. All the staking plans I have analysed do NOT increase POT in the LONG RUN - they generally do one of two things......


becareful, do you have raw data you would like used for the test? I require 200+ PLACE results only in excel format preferred. If they are your actual betting even better. This will only work if you are a place bettor with a strike rate above 70%. If not, just make it up with all the losing/winning sequences you want.

Please post your email address and I will contact you directly.

Placegetter

PS. I don't know if I will prove an increased POT, but it might still be interesting for both of us.

[becareful]

Placegetter - I have turned on the email address option in my profile.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2002-06-26 12:42 ]</font>

[hermes]

Thanks becareful. Caution is your middle name. I agree on the average bet size. Lots of systems that are for sale try to sucker people on that. It is *average bet size* that counts, otherwise any comparisdon between level betting and a staking scheme will be misleading. But Placegetter here seems to have the goods - a simple system for turning marginal profits into major profits. I have to admit Placegetter, you system is the most exciting I've encountered in this forum so far. I've been betting for winners but looking back over 60 races, and including the selections I made but didn't actually bet on (to win), I'm getting about 72% place strike. If I can sustain that, or improve it, and maintain some discipline as well, then by Placegetter's system I'm in business! Is that right Placegetter? Anything over 70% strike rate will work? I've been looking at your maths Placegetter. Congratulations and many, many thanks for sharing it with people here in this forum. Awesome.

[hermes]

Sorry. Got it wrong. It is Testarossa's scheme that is the goer, not Placegetters, but Placegetter says he has a very similiar method. I don't doubt that with the appropriate staking system you can turn marginal profits into good returns. The maths looks OK to me.

[Placegetter]

On 2002-06-26 13:37, hermes wrote:
It is Testarossa's scheme that is the goer, not Placegetters.


He only turned $800 into $13,000 though.....

[Equine Investor]

becareful, that system I posted (1,3,6,18) is still working...only because there are more winners within four bets than losers.

E.G. each bet is a set of four. (1+3+6+18 = 28) which is the set. If there are say 90 sets that win and ten sets that lose, then you are ahead, providing your average profit on each set is enough to cover losses. Also there are many winning sets of 1 , 1+3, 1+3+6. My data would testify to this.
However, should the strike ratio change, then you would have to revise this.

As far as any other staking plan goes the retirement staking plan is the best I have ever seen!!!!

I recommend it if used properly.

http://www.grandstand.com.au/retirement.html






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-26 15:21 ]</font>

[becareful]

Hermes - I may just be playing semantics here but I wouldn't call Testerossas idea a staking system in the normal sense of the term. If I understand it correctly what he is doing is generating a single lot of selections and then placing different bet types on those selections, namely:

1. Betting on each selection individually
2. Betting 2 race allups
3. Betting 3 race allups

Each of these 3 bet types (or 4 if you include the 2nd 2 race combination) is placed with even stakes. In this case the benefit is coming from the multiplier effect of the allup but as always the profitability depends on the POT of the basic selections being positive.

I have no problem with using allup betting to improve profits provided you have a positive return to start with (otherwise you will be increasing losses) and have a selection system with a high strike rate.