PDA

View Full Version : 100/20 plan


hermes
27th June 2002, 08:44 AM
Here's a scheme of the "win building" type from that Turf Accountant website I keep referring to. Its a goldmine of stuff. But I wonder how accurate?

He claims to have a plan that makes big profits from Metropolitan favourites.

I'm having trouble following how this one works, but note the claims he makes at the end:

1824 bets
POT = 8.5%
Worst situation = down $499
Average bet size = $29
Net profit of $4,352 on a total turnover of $53,383.

And only betting on metro favourites to win! If true, amazing.

I am sceptical but here it is. I quote directly from the website.

----------

THE 100/20 PLAN

There are no"Rules" as such for the second Staking Plan that proved profitable for all Saturday/Public Holiday Metropolitan Favorites
over the twelve month period, but rather a Formula..


This Plan takes the complete opposite "Tack" instead of building up bets on Losses It makes it's major build up on Wins. The Plan relies on the occasional 3 or more consecutive win sequences to succeed, by waiting for
these sequences and betting virtually "All-up" we bet small until a winner is struck and thereby limit losses in the wait between "drinks".

The "Factors" in the formula have to be adjusted for the expected strike rates and expected "run of outs".

With the 30% strike rate I calculated the probability of 3 consecutive winners at 2.7% and allowed for my estimate of the 1/100,000 probability of 165 bets "misses" between trebles.

The Plan was then tested over the 1824 bets as above, and I would have expected a longest run of outs as in the table below - compared to the actual happening.


Run of outs between trebles
R/O/O/ Frequency Expected. Occurred.

110+ 0 0
100+ 1 1 (101)
90+ 2 2
80+ 3 4
70+ 5 6
60+ 8 6
50+ 11 8
40+ 15 16
30+ 24 23
20+ 41 39
10+ 51 49
0+ 57 56


The degree of correlation surprises even me, but validates the 165 provision in the Plan.


The Formula is:
Next Bet = T/I*D*W.
Where:
T = Targeted Return $.
I = Insurance Factor.
D = Dividend Factor.
W = Win Sequence.

T = Targeted Dollars = B + L*BT + CCL
Where:
B = Target Base.
L = Losing sequence.
BT = Profit Target per Bet.
CCL = Current Cumulative Losses this Current Sequence.

Sounds very complicated - IT IS - but it works.

"T" combines Profit and Loss chasing. If at a stage in the current sequence you have had 3 losing bets of say $5, $10 and $12, and you have set "B" at $100, and BT at $10 (That is the long term Plan is to profit by $10 per bet). Then C will be $157, that is the addition of the base target profit of $100, plus $10 per bet for the three bets, = $30 plus recouping the $27 loss this sequence to date. (Cumulative Losses) T = 157.

I = insurance factor

Now I is the insurance factor - it is the realisation that we cannot win all our target each bet, as the bets would become too high to manage - so we go for a portion of the overall target each bet. I use an Insurance Factor of 20. So I = 20.

D = Dividend Factor.

It is just a natural fact of the game that more TAB <$2 win than $2-$3 and even less >$4 win etc.

In the first Plan we increased our bets on the short priced/better chances by "Target Betting" here we use a Dividend Factor.

I only use 1 - 2 - 4 -KISS - but other methods could prove more accurate.


Factor 4 is used for any Win Divs under $3.
Factor 2 is used for Win Divs $3.00 - $5.00.
Factor 1 is used for $5+ Win Divs.


W = Win Sequence.

As I said we chase the win sequences. With an Insurance Factor of 20 we would never achieve our target otherwise.
The Win Sequence is 1- 3- 6- 10- 16- 26- 42. ( This is related to average expected Dividend and is adjusted accordingly.)
It rarely goes beyond a series of 4 and the factor of 10, since a horse paying say $3 with a D Factor of 2 and a W factor of 10 would have a factor of 20 and since the Insurance factor is 20 this 20/20 = 1,
in other words the bet would be the same size as the target and the target must be exceeded if the bet wins, and so the target would
become 'negative'. In the case of the target dropping below 100 re reset to 100.

For those contemplating setting up a Spreadsheet like this a few "tips".
All of these "Factors" such as Insurance size, Win sequence factors, Dividend Factors etc, should be set up in "named" cells and the
formulas related back to the named cells. Then you can "experiment"
by changing the insurance factor to say 10 or changing the third win sequence factor to 12 instead of 10,
you can then change certain factors in isolation or in combinations and see the effect on the entire series of bets at the push of a button. I
have used that type of methodology in analysing systems and staking plans and the two in combination for the last 20 plus years.

So using this Formula

Next Bet = T/I*D*W.

with I set at 20.
B set at $100.
BT set at $10.
D at 1 - 2 - 4 for <$2 # $2.10 - $4.00 # $4+
and W at 1 3 6 10 16 26 42....

The 1824 bets on Saturday Metropolitan favorites resulted in a net Profit of $4,352 on a total turnover of $53,383 for a POT of 8.15% the minimum bet size was $1 the maximum $500 and the average bet size was $29. After we had had our third collect on the second day we were always in front and using the TAB's money, except for an 8 bet sequence on the tenth day where we reached our worst situation of minus $499.

--------


You can check the website yourself at:

http://tucows.ecopost.com.au/~turfacts/turfacts.html

I'm not an accountant. Does this scheme add up? Can anyone with a head for formulae give a simple explanation of this one?

Cheers and good punting

Hermes

Placegetter
27th June 2002, 07:50 PM
I can't work out what bank you have to start on and believe you me, it would be big. At least $10,000 on first bet of $100, because after just four bets you are up to $1000 bets if I have read this right. Remembering that this is betting on metro favourites for the win only!

hermes
27th June 2002, 09:00 PM
Placegetter,

I think you are reading it right. Large bank, large bets on metro favourites to win. This guy is very much an investment punter looking for ways to get better returns on investment than bank interest. This 100/20 scheme offers that, he says. But you could scale the scheme down. Does it work in principle? Complex, as he says, but he insists it works. Is the formula sound, do you think? What are the flaws?


Placegetter: does your motto encapsulate your betting strategy? Pick winners - back them to place. Is this your approach to picking placegetters? Try to select the winner - back it to place. Do you ever bet each way? How often do horses you've selected to win but backed to place win? That's a problem with place betting for me. If I back a horse to place and it wins I start thinking "if only...."

Equine Investor
27th June 2002, 11:03 PM
Very Interesting theory here, instead of loss chasing, you are capitalising on the event of say three winners in a row. The likelihood of this would be a very slim percentage. Not to say that it doesn't happen, because it does, but I don't know if you could wait the very long run of outs before showing a profit.
I would much rather this scenario place betting, but then the returns will not be as good. It balances itself out though because you would not endure that horrid run of outs.
I.E. More regularly there are days where 4 to 6 favourites are placed.
It is worth persuing because if you can handle the bad times I am sure the dividends would more than compensate.

I.E. $10 on $2.60 + $2.80 +$3.20 = $232.96
So it makes up for 23 losses @ $10.00

I would imagine, as mentioned, you need a very sizeable bank!

One flaw I forgot to mention - If you are in a run of say 50 consecutive outs (a reasonable expectation) how are you going to feel when you place an all-up on what you think is the favourite and there is a last minute plunge on something at 5/1 into 7/2 favourite and it salutes, and you miss it!
Better to take prepost or have some other method of selection. This is one of the problems with favourite systems etc.
You can miss it when you most need it. Just a suggestion.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-28 00:11 ]</font>

Placegetter
28th June 2002, 08:04 AM
On 2002-06-27 22:00, hermes wrote:
Placegetter: does your motto encapsulate your betting strategy? Pick winners - back them to place. Is this your approach to picking placegetters? Try to select the winner - back it to place. Do you ever bet each way? How often do horses you've selected to win but backed to place win? That's a problem with place betting for me. If I back a horse to place and it wins I start thinking "if only...."


Horses I've picked to win and backed for a place that still won would be about the same as the number of horses I've picked to win and backed to place which subsequently came fourth! :sad:

Do I ever back to win? Yes. Last weekend I backed an absolute certainty in Adelaide called Shocks, it got held up in the run home and finished 2nd. The only thing it was absolutely certainly going to do was place, which is where my money should have been.

In reality I have two banks. 90% of my money is place only betting (1st is still a place) and 10% goes on guesses, quinellas, crap races (includes the Melbourne Cup) etc. Oddly enough, at the end of the month I rarely have to top the bank up to the 10% level, but I just consider this lucky.

Privateer has suggested a couple of times on this site that people starting out try 1 unit to win, 4 to place. Maybe this will solve your "if only" thoughts. My experience was I said more often than not "If only that last unit was on for a place".

If any exotic bettors needs someone adept at picking 2nd and 3rd placegetters, I'm your man! My horses fall in for third just as often as they win by 2 lengths, probably lots more.

Hope this gives you an idea as to why I bet the way I do. Good luck this weekend.

Placegetter

becareful
28th June 2002, 08:50 AM
I haven't had time to go through it in detail yet but there is one big thing that bothers me. Everyone knows that backing tote favourites to win indiscriminately is a sure way to lose money - usually about 15% LOT. Now even staking plan advocates generally agree that for a staking plan to work you must start with a system that breaks-even at level stakes (or at worst gives a loss of a few %). Now what is so special about this that it can turn a loss of 15% into a profit of 8%? On first glance it seems a bit much to expect. As I said I haven't looked at in detail yet but I would not use it without some thorough testing.