Strike rates, runs of outs and banks

[Duritz]

Here's one for the mathematically sound -

How do you calculate what's a safe % of your bank to outlay on a system, given it's strike rate, in order to survive any reasonably forseeable run of outs?

Examples:

System A has a 22% s/r, ave div $4.80. What's the % of bank you should outlay and be safe?

System B has a 6% strike rate, ave div $17.20. What's the % of it you should outlay and be safe?

Obviously the % outlay would be less for Sys B than A because it will have longer runs of outs, but how do you calculate it?

[TWOBETS]

Try this for size.
http://www.online-betting-guide.co.uk/analysis/calculators/stake-calc.php

[Duritz]

Thanks but that's based around dutch betting, ie having more on the greater the value. What I'm talking about is what is your safe level to be staking given the criteria above, not how much should you have on given the level of overs.

[crash]

Duritz,

I'd sack both systems as they are almost profitless. The difference between the regarding profit is almost nil.

Working out runs of outs [or ins for that matter] is best understood by understanding the odds for various lengths of repeatability. There is no definitive' exact run of outs for a certain odds. The simple maths of the odds of a coin landing heads twice in a row is a great example in understand the odds of any number of outs [or ins] you like, happening:

The probability of the coin landing head up is 50% and that of tail up is 50%. So if we choose head up and then find that it lands head up twice in a row, this is 50% for the first toss then 50% for the second, so the cumulative odds are 50% of 50%, or 25% (4:1). For further cumulative odds just multiply the odds expected at each stage, so for 8 head up lands for 8 throws we have a probability of 50% * 50% * 50% * 50% * 50% * 50% * 50% * 50% = 0.39% (256:1).

Cheers.

[BJ]

Here's one for the mathematically sound -

How do you calculate what's a safe % of your bank to outlay on a system, given it's strike rate, in order to survive any reasonably forseeable run of outs?

Examples:

System A has a 22% s/r, ave div $4.80. What's the % of bank you should outlay and be safe?

System B has a 6% strike rate, ave div $17.20. What's the % of it you should outlay and be safe?

Obviously the % outlay would be less for Sys B than A because it will have longer runs of outs, but how do you calculate it?

Guess it also depends on what kind of staking strategy you will be implementing.

[KennyVictor]

I've never pretended to be mathematically sound but I'll do what I always do and throw computing power at it until it cracks under the strain.
I wrote a program that used random number generation to return a win according to the percentages you defined, then when a win was encountered paid out the dividend you suggested. I invoked this randomness not once, not twice, not ten times, not..., well a million times actually. And over a series of a million $1 bets I got the following results.

22% strike rate, $4.80 divvy, Profit $56,624, Worst run $294.40
Second time I tried it I got $58814 profit (see Crash, there's nothing wrong with the system if you show a little persistence) and had a worst run of $304.20
If I'm betting a dollar and the worst monetary loss I got at any point was about $300 in a million bet run I suggest a three hundredth of your bank is a safeish amount to bet.

On the other figures I got:

6% strike rate, $17.20 divvy, Profit $26668, Worst run $1369.60
Second time through $36816 profit, worst run $1710.60
Better not stake this one too aggressively.

I'm not entirely happy with the results as all the dividends are the same size which could cause some minor differences. So since you didn't give us a figure governing the variability of the dividends I'm now trialling a new approach involving 1,000,000 worker ants with different sized grains of sand on their backs running against each other up a variable slope. Unfortunately getting results depends on me weighing the resulting piles of sand on the kitchen scales and negotiations with the misses have fallen over on that front. Therefore until I mow the lawn and take the garbage out I can't give you the definitive answer and can only advise caution with staking your new systems.

Best of luck,

KV

[partypooper]

Crash, I accept that its 256-1 to throw heads (or tales) 8 times in a row but what confuses me is that each throw even after 7 wins is still 50% isn't it?

On the question of profitabilty seems that many "pros." are working on a POT of 5% or even less what do you reckon to that?

[Chrome Prince]

Hi partypooper,

I know a few pros, not many, but a couple of high rollers.

Each has a vastly different method.

While not divulging exactly what they do, they were prepared to tell me how they do it.

Punter 1

He goes to trackwork, every trial in his home State, knows most of the jockey and trainers by first name and has absolutely no inside information, he just assesses good horses and has selective big bets. Maybe 5 on a weekend.
His POT is very high, because his range is 5/1 to 20/1. But it can be a long time between good collects. His $ return is good because he bets big.

Punter 2

He works on 5 to 10% POT, and his bets are usually under 5/1. He knows nothing about horses really, and wouldn't recognize Gai Waterhouse or John Hawkes if he fell over them. He simply works out the horses likely to win under 5/1 based on statistics. His $ return is small, but he has a lot of smaller bets. (smaller in comparison with Punter 1, huge in comparison with me.)
He is happy to have a regular stream of income from racing, without taking the track home.

I don't think he ever takes odds on, his range is 1/1 to 5/1.

Both would not divulge exactly how they formulate their bets, but were happy to talk to me for quite some time about my theories as well.

Punter 2 ran my theories over his database and was gob smacked.

Needless to say he bought me a few beers, but that was it ;-(

P.S. My theories relate to Geldings, final sectionals and days since last start.

[Duritz]

KV thanks for that informative and funny post. That was the kind of stats I was looking for.

Crash the examples were theoretical.

BJ the staking plan would just be level stakes.

Pretty much what I am trying to ascertain is what is a safe level to bet at, given strike rates, so that anticapated runs of outs can be safely negotiated. It is runs of outs that are the problem, not runs of ins. I want to be able to survive a bad run and still be there to take advantage of the good runs.

[crash]

Crash, I accept that its 256-1 to throw heads (or tales) 8 times in a row but what confuses me is that each throw even after 7 wins is still 50% isn't it?

On the question of profitability seems that many "pros." are working on a POT of 5% or even less what do you reckon to that?

Your spot-on Party, regardless of the amount of throws, each throw has a 50% chance if it is the first or 50th. or millionth. I was demonstrating the cumulative odds and chose 8 throws because it is often used as the number of 'expected run of outs' for evens odds. Very few punters understand exactly what 'expected run of outs' mean [mostly nonsense]. Being able to work out the odds for any number of outs puts it in perspective and has meaning that we can relate too. A 256/1 chance of 8 outs in a row has meaning, '8 expected run of outs' has none.

Regarding your second question one must ask 5% of what? On an investment of $500 a week in bets it wouldn't pay my internet and electricity bill for that period, let alone provide profit. 5% on $100,000 ? Yes please.

That's the problem for us poor buggers on the bottom of the food chain. 'Bet 2% of Bank and be happy with 5% profit' is the maxim we have shoved down our gobs. That means for most of us - if we are successful, a free pie and soft drink a week:-)

[jfc]

System A has a 22% s/r, ave div $4.80. What's the % of bank you should outlay and be safe?

System B has a 6% strike rate, ave div $17.20. What's the % of it you should outlay and be safe?



I'm amazed that no one here has supplied the one and only correct solution.

The Kelly Criterion says Edge/Odds.

If you believe in the long-term consistency of the systems:

System A: Edge=5.6%

Stake = 1.47% (=5.6/3.8%)

System B: Edge=3.2%

Stake = 0.1975%

[Silver_and_sand]

Hi Duritz,

I'm glad you've raised this type of question as it's something that has bothered me for the last couple of months. In my mind, the first thing you need to do is determine the expected lengths of losing streaks. For this, I've been using a program I found a while ago online called Risk of Ruin. It's pretty simple. You enter your strike rate, length of trials to run it over, and the minimum and maximum number of length of outs to test for, and it estimates for you the probability of the specified number of outs. After looking over the results, you decide on what the best guestimate is for the longest number of outs is.

For instance, in a test over 10,000 trials System A, with a strike rate of 22%, has a 45% probability of having a maximum losing streak of 33 outs. In a test over 10,000 trials System B, with a strike rate of 6%, has a 40% probability of having a maximum losing streak of 114 outs.

To make things difficult though, there's nothing saying that you could have a run of 114 outs, have a small win, followed by another run of say 96 outs! With these lengthy runs of outs possible, it would obviously be foolish to be betting say 5% of the bank as the standard bet size.

As far as staking goes, you obviously need to devise a plan that can sustain these lengthy losing streaks. I like the idea of betting a % of the bank, for instance 1%, so if starting with a bank of $1,000, then you would bet $10 on each qualifying selection. I stick with that $10 bet size for the week (I only bet Saturdays anyway), and revise the bet size based on where my bank stands at the start of the new week. Theoretically, this should help preserve the bank for quite a while in the case of an extended losing streak. For instance, if one had a bank of $1,000, had a 1% bet size, had an average of 10 bets a week and lost 10% of their bank every week during an extended losing streak, here's how the weekly tallies would go:

Starting bank = $1,000
Week 1 = $900 / Week 2 = $810 / Week 3 = $729 / Week 4 = $656 / Week 5 = $590.49 / Week 6 = $535.44 / Week 7 = $478.30 / Week 8 = $430.37 / Week 9 = $387.42 / Week 10 = $348.68 / Week 11 = $313.81 / Week 12 = $282.43 / Week 13 = $254.19 / etc. By this time, the bank has likely endured the longest probable run of outs.

So theoretically, this 1% bet size (amount revised weekly), could sustain System B's initial maximum # of outs, it's just a matter what happens after that. Is it followed by another long run of outs?

Honestly Duritz, as Crash suggests neither System A nor System B seem very strong. System A has a decent stike rate, but it's average return is quite low. Maybe it could be improved by shopping around for better prices, but I suspect it would still be too low. And System B's strike rate is just too low, I would doubt many punters would have the guts to continue betting into a losing streak of over 100 outs. I'm glad you mentioned these systems were just theoretical.

Hopefully, I've been of some help to you. I think you're on the right track in using % of bank to determine betting size. You just need to find a system that has System A's strike rate combined with System B's average dividend (easier said than done).

In case it's of any benefit to you (and honestly to brag a little too), here's how I bet my system:

Strike rate = 23.5%, Average Div. = $7.81
With this strike rate, I can expect my longest losing streak to be roughly 32 in a test over 10,000 races. Decided on a 2% bet size.
My starting bank was $1,000.
Week 1 = Bet size $20, 11 bets for 2 wins returning $37.96 = $539.20 profit, so closing bank = $1,539.20
Week 2 = Bet size $31, 7 bets for 2 wins returning $11.32 = $133.92 profit, so closing bank = $1,673.12
Week 3 = Bet size $33, 17 bets for 5 wins returning $32.93 = $525.69 profit, so closing bank = $2,198.81
Week 4 = Bet size $44, 15 bets for 5 wins returning $48.58 = $1,477.52 profit, so closing bank+ $3,676.33
Week 5 = Bet size $74, 6 bets for 0 wins returning $0.00 = $444 loss, so closing bank = $3,232.33
Week 6 = Bet size $65, 10 bets for 2 wins returning $9.08 = $59.80 loss, so closing bank = $3,172.53
Week 7 = Bet size $63, 13 bets for 5 wins returning $31.20 = $1,146.60 profit, so closing bank = $4,319.13
Week 8 = Bet size $86, 10 bets for 3 wins returning $19.34 = $803.24 profit, so closing bank = $5,122.37
Week 9 = Bet size $102, 12 bets for 2 wins returning $11.91 = $9.18 loss, so closing bank = $5,113.19
Week 10 = Bet size $102, 10 bets for 2 wins returning $26.76 = $1,709.52 profit, so closing bank = $6,822.71
Week 11 = Bet size $136, 16 bets for 3 wins returning $19.78 = $514.08 profit, so closing bank = $7,336.79
Week 12 = Bet size $147, 22 bets for 4 wins returning $24.54 = $373.38 profit, so closing bank = $7,710.17

So after 12 weeks, using a 2% staking plan, my system has experienced an average weekly increase of roughly 18%. The winning horses paid between $4 and $32 for the win. My longest run of outs spread over numerous weeks was 15. I also had 1 run of 10 outs and 2 runs of 8 outs. So far though, these losing streaks haven't seemed to have damaged my bank too much. Fingers crossed my luck continues.

Best of luck to ya Duritz. Hope you find a winner or two.

[Debug]

This has nothing to do with staking but a simple method I sometimes use to control a string of outs. It is used with an automated program when betting on every race.

The idea is to keep betting when you are winning and stop betting as soon as you come up with a loss until such time as another win is detected.

Here is an example:

Win keep betting
Win keep betting
Lose Lost bet (stop betting)
Lose no bet
Lose no bet
Lose no bet
Lose no bet
Win no bet (resume betting next race.)
Win keep betting
etc etc.

It can turn a losing day into a winning day, but it can also be disastrous when there is alternate wins and losses.

I should mention that the program continues making selections and calculating bets even though it may not be making bets

[Sahasastar]

First of all you have to have total confidence that your system is profitable and will hold up in the long term, only you can determine that. Research, a database and filters are all needed to be kept.

If your system is profitable any sensible staking plan will suffice.

Personally though, I am a big advocate of silver and sands system too, 1% of the back then recalculating it each week or month, not after each bet. The account grows as the winners come in, but is also protected as the losing streak kicks in. Hypothetically using this simple staking plan, you can NEVER do the lot.

I am amazed how people sometimes well and truly complicate simple things.

BTW, silver and sand. After 52 weeks, you'll have $5,800,000. Let me know in about 10-20 weeks when you are banned from betting, or if your bets are capped. Personally interested as I am not far away if my systems hold up over the next few months...

[darkydog2002]

Was it BECAREFUL who used to use the KELLY criteria?

Cheers.
darky.

[crash]

I'm amazed that no one here has supplied the one and only correct solution.

The Kelly Criterion says Edge/Odds.

If you believe in the long-term consistency of the systems:

System A: Edge=5.6%

Stake = 1.47% (=5.6/3.8%)

System B: Edge=3.2%

Stake = 0.1975%

Hi JFC, long time no see[?]

Oh boy. not the Kelly again. Edge = overlay. Must know what the [true]overlay is to use this very aggressive staking plan, True overlay in sports betting? How long is a piece of string?

Rather than anyone suffering this Kelly nonsense championed by someone who never uses it by his own omission [JFC], here is a forum thread on this rubbish before you get sucked in:-)

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=3571&highlight=kelly

[KennyVictor]

For instance, in a test over 10,000 trials System A, with a strike rate of 22%, has a 45% probability of having a maximum losing streak of 33 outs. In a test over 10,000 trials System B, with a strike rate of 6%, has a 40% probability of having a maximum losing streak of 114 outs.

To make things difficult though, there's nothing saying that you could have a run of 114 outs, have a small win, followed by another run of say 96 outs! With these lengthy runs of outs possible, it would obviously be foolish to be betting say 5% of the bank as the standard bet size.


This seems to be the trouble with all the statistics based answers I've ever seen to this question. I know enough basic statistics myself to be able to work out the theoretical maximum number of outs (as per above) but as you point out that figure isn't a great deal of use. Possibly a deeper knowledge of stats would give a value to the worse loosing streak which is the important thing here. The worst loosing streak (as I see it) is the greatest amount of money lost from your bank at any time. So if you start with $1000, build to $1200, then at some point get down to $800 before rising again to $1300 your worst losing streak is $400 (1200 - 800). If you are betting a percentage of bank you must assume this worst run could happen at the start of betting and not after you have some winnings to cushion the fall. Anyway, to stop rambling and ask the question I wanted to ask at the start, does anyone know enough stats to work out this theoretical likely loosing streak? I think that is the answer Duritz' question really seeks.

KV

[crash]

Kenny,

I agree with you on what is important:

Quote:
"The worst loosing streak (as I see it) is the greatest amount of money lost from your bank at any time. So if you start with $1000, build to $1200, then at some point get down to $800 before rising again to $1300 your worst losing streak is $400 (1200 - 800)." End quote.

Call the $400 'Max. draw-down'. Something real we can work with.

I have already supplied the maths formula in this thread to work out the odds of any run of outs for any winning % [odds]. A formula is what was asked for.

[Bhagwan]

Expected run of outs for 10% = 65
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 20% = 31

Betting level stakes , bank should be at least 3.5 times the run of outs.
E.g. 10% SR for a run of outs of 65 X 3.5 = 228
Bet $1.00 for a bank of $228

20% run of outs 31 X 3.50 = 109
Bet $1.00 for a bank of $109

Cheers.

[crash]

Expected run of outs for 10% = 65
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''' 20% = 31

Bagman, how did you arrive at the above [what formula] ?

'Expected' [it will probably happen] just doesn't make sense. Have you worked out the odds of either of the above happening ? So why are they expected and why did you settle on 65 and 31 ? Why not more [or less]?

I think it would be a very long wait indeed for either of the above outs to ever happen. They might happen, yet so might 200 runs of outs for either 10% or even 20%. It's seems like nonsense to me to say this is the [definitive?] run of outs you can expect. Please explain, I'm mystified. Thanks.

[Duritz]

Bhagwhan THANKS for that, that is EXACTLY the kind of answer I am looking for, now could you kindly tell us the maths used to arrive at those answers, so I can apply it to other examples?

Crash - Grade 3 schoolboys know the maths for working out the odds of a series of outs as in your example. In that respect, with a calculator or Excel I can happily calculate the LIKELIHOOD of any series of outs, which is the maths you provided, but that's not the question I asked. The question I asked is what run of outs should one prepare to expect at some point, given the strike rates, and THEREFORE what is a safe betting level, given the strike rates? That is exactly what Bhaghwan has endeavoured to (and seemingly succeeded to) answer.

No harm though Crash, always do enjoy your electic posts. :)

But, again, Bhagwan, show us the maths please?

[jfc]

Bhagwhan THANKS for that, that is EXACTLY the kind of answer I am looking for, now could you kindly tell us the maths used to arrive at those answers, so I can apply it to other examples?

Crash - Grade 3 schoolboys know the maths for working out the odds of a series of outs as in your example. In that respect, with a calculator or Excel I can happily calculate the LIKELIHOOD of any series of outs, which is the maths you provided, but that's not the question I asked. The question I asked is what run of outs should one prepare to expect at some point, given the strike rates, and THEREFORE what is a safe betting level, given the strike rates? That is exactly what Bhaghwan has endeavoured to (and seemingly succeeded to) answer.

No harm though Crash, always do enjoy your electic posts. :)

But, again, Bhagwan, show us the maths please?

Actually Grade 3 schoolboys DON'T know the maths. If they did then what are they still doing in Grade 3?

But Duritz, if you claim to be able to do such basic probability, how can you NOT realise that once more Bhagwan is talking nonsense.

Obviously the largest run of outs increases with the more bets you make.

Anyway here are the maths.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Run.html

To paraphrase Groucho, maybe a Grade 3 schoolboy can understand that, but where on Earth am I going to find one.

[jfc]

Thanks but that's based around dutch betting, ie having more on the greater the value. What I'm talking about is what is your safe level to be staking given the criteria above, not how much should you have on given the level of overs.

Duritz,

TwoBets gave you a link to PRECISELY answer your question.

If you weren't interested in value why didn't you just say strike rate of 22%, and leave out the $4.80 dividend?

Key those numbers into that calculator and you will get an answer - which fortunately matches mine.

Dutch betting does NOT consider value as you claim.

What you appear to looking for is a "Risk of Ruin Calculator".

Simply google for that (Australia) and you will find a free one.

If I gave you a link directly it would offend the censor.

[KennyVictor]

Hi JFC,

With the aid of my mates twelve year old I attacked the maths in your link and came to the conclusion it only predicts the likely run of CONSECUTIVE outs, not the actual worst run. The worst run being the cumulative effect of maybe many runs of outs and what we really need to know to judge our bet size. (If this conclusion is wrong blame the 12 year old).
As you say knowing the number of bets is essential to working out the likely number of consecutive outs or for that matter the worst run. I suspect the figures Bagwhan provided are based on statistics and if I were at home and had my handy 3rd grade statistics book handy I'd explain how they are derived.
From what I remember integration was required to provide a formula giving the maximum number of outs from a sample size and a hit percentage so the book takes pity on the mathematically challenged and provides a table of approximate values. Using this table you can predict the likely number of consecutive misses at any percentage hit rate and sample size (number of bets).
This again doesn't help us with the calculation of our worst run. I believe this is what Bagwhan is providing when he says multiply the worst run of consecutive outs by 3.5. He does fail to tell us (as JFC point out) what number of bets his figures relate to.

I wonder though if Bagwhan's figures have any meaning without knowing the likely dividend we are going to win. Obviously if we have a 50% strike rate and an average dividend of $1.90 we will always end up losing our bank whatever the run of outs though we may succeed with an average divvy of $2.10.

I still reckon my random number program at the start of this thread takes a lot of beating. It takes everything except variably divvy into account and must be worth a fortune to everyone that bets on horses. When interest is at a fever pitch I might even market it unless that cursed "Risk of Ruin" thing is just as good as it is foolishly underpriced.

O.K. On holidays, starting to ramble, leaving now.

KV

[crash]

Actually Grade 3 schoolboys DON'T know the maths. If they did then what are they still doing in Grade 3?

But Duritz, if you claim to be able to do such basic probability, how can you NOT realize that once more Bhagwan is talking nonsense.

Obviously the largest run of outs increases with the more bets you make.

Anyway here are the maths.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Run.html

To paraphrase Groucho, maybe a Grade 3 schoolboy can understand that, but where on Earth am I going to find one.

Thank you JFC, I feel vindicated. I also think Bagman's figures say nothing. I had previous stated on an earlier page: 'Expected runs of outs' are meaningless. I did however extent the courtesy for him to explain his reasoning.
I had explained previously [3rd or 4th post here] how to work out [simply] the odds of an any run of outs. The odds of various possible outs happening are more meaningful and useful than 'expected". Surely a grade 3 schoolboy should have been able to take it from there for their betting purposes Duritz ?

Cheers.

[KennyVictor]

No harm though Crash, always do enjoy your electic posts. :)



Was that:
a) eclectic.
b) electric.
c) epileptic.
d) I should buy a better dictionary.

KV

[jfc]

Hi JFC,

I wonder though if Bagwhan's figures have any meaning without knowing the likely dividend we are going to win. Obviously if we have a 50% strike rate and an average dividend of $1.90 we will always end up losing our bank whatever the run of outs though we may succeed with an average divvy of $2.10.


KV
KV,

This is one big problem I have with Bhagwan's inclinations, he still doesn't seem to understand the insanity of playing negative expectation games.

He's quite content playing Roulette Red/Black which has an expectation of -2.7%. Then he seems to delude himself with some low run-of-out estimates to justify donating money to Casinos.

---

I just ran my Drawdown simulator for 1,000,000 trials @ 22% and $4.80 to contrast my results with your earlier ones.

Profits - Drawdown
$54,964 $226
$57,435 $219
$59,254 $241

Right now I'm unsure of the implications.

[stebbo]

I'm amazed that no one here has supplied the one and only correct solution.

The Kelly Criterion says Edge/Odds.

If you believe in the long-term consistency of the systems:

System A: Edge=5.6%

Stake = 1.47% (=5.6/3.8%)

System B: Edge=3.2%

Stake = 0.1975%

Crikey JFC...

that has to be the worst bastardisation of the Kelly criterion I have seen in a looooooong time.

Anyone who stakes according to the above Math needs to seriously reconsider their life as a gambler.

Cheers,
Chris.

[moeee]

Well I don't care what you'se say.
JFC is the best,and I love him.
And have you dowloaded and ran "risk of ruin" yet,Duritz?
You must!

[Duritz]

Unable to find the Risk of Ruin calculator.

As to the Grade 3 schoolboy (with the guide in his pocket):

Say, for example, you had a method with a 1 in 100 strike rate, but it was beautifully profitable with an average dividend of $1000. Well, you still have to consider money management and prepare for runs of outs. Say your bank is $1000. Even with this superlatively profitable system you can't go having 5% of your bank on them, because at some point you WILL hit a run of outs of 20, destroying your bank. The likelihood of a run of outs of 20 is 82% (0.99^20).

So, say you bet 1% of your bank. The likelihood of beginning a run which would wipe it out is still high, at 36.6%. (0.99^100). So, on average, with a s/r of 0.01 you are going to begin a streak of 100 losses every third bet or so. Not sustainable at 1%.

All right - 0.1% of your bank is the bet. In order to wipe it out, you need to have 1000 losses. Chances of that - 0.004%. (0.99^1000)

@@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a massive difference!!! Suddenly, with this, your chances of wiping out your bank are merely 1 in 23,000 or so!!

So, is that the right bet size? 0.1%? Or is it something slightly more, or less? WHAT FIGURE IS THE RIGHT FIGURE TO BEGIN BETTING WITH???

That is the essence of the question I am asking. It is merely what is sensible, given a strike rate, to use as an outlay figure, given a strike rate. I think perhaps what people are forgetting is that this question is not entirely mathematical. In working out what is "sensible", part of the consideration is determining what you as a punter can handle losing of your bank before you strip off and start pacing the living room, bottle of scotch in hand, quoting from Kerouac's On the Road.

We need to consider the psychology of it: ie, what can we handle, before we do our banana?

In that respect, I again applaud what Baghwan said, for in that is some truth. He said that your bank should be 3.5 times what you can reasonably foresee as a losing streak. I myself had been thinking along the lines that if my worst losing streak only wiped out a quarter of my bank, I'd be fine. THAT'S the logic behind figures like the 3.5 of bank etc. This is what I mean when I say it's NOT a purely mathematical question. People forget that we are humans with human frailties and the best test and strain of these frailties is a long losing streak. Trust me, like no doubt all of you, I've been through them. The biggest test of a method is how is stands up while the selections are falling down.

So, like the Castle built on the hill for extra fortification, I only want 25% of my bank to be lost in the longest forseeable losing streaks.

In that case, if your bank is $1000 and your longest forseeable losing streak (LFLS so I can stop typing it) is 50, then your bet size $5, or 0.5%.

Problem is, HOW does one calculate the LFLS??? What is reasonably foreseeable?

I take Crash's and others' point that the LFLS depends on how long you bet, so in this case let's say 10 years. We live under the decimal system, everything is 1's and 0's, so let's say 10 years.

With that in mind, next thing we need to quantify is number of bets in the 10 years, so - 200 per week, strike rate 10%, let's work it out on that. (I know, 200 per week, shock horror, let's just go with it).

Therefore, 200 bets per week, lets round that to 10,000 per year, 10 years, 100,000. It all fits nicely in the decimal system.

So, strike rate 10%, 100,000 bets, what are the chances of a run of outs of 100?

Well, the chance of a run of outs of 100 at any given time with a strike rate of 10% is 0.9^100, or 0.002656%, or 1 in 37648. So, reasonably, you can expect 3 of these such runs in a 100,000 bet run. In that case, if that is the maximum run of outs you can "reasonably" expect, then your bet size should be 0.25% of your bank, given that you only want to lose 25% of you bank in this longest run of outs.

But can you expect worse than that?

What's the probability of a run of outs of 200? It's 0.9^200, or 0.00000007055079%, which is 1 in 1,417,418,550 bets.

Now, maybe the pessimists out there wills say, "yeah, I expect that, just my luck. First bet I have, and wouldn't you know it, a 1,417,418,550/1 shot will get up by me having a run of outs of 200." Well, we'll just rename you Neil from the Young Ones.

From my point of view, I don't think that's a reasonable run of outs to expect, therefore reasonable is somewhere in between.

How about 125? - Maths is 0.9^125, or 0.00019068374812%, or 1 in 524,428.

110? - 0.9^110, or 0.00092613871310%, or 1 in 107,975. This means you could expect one of these runs in your 100,000 bet run.

Maybe it's 110. Maybe you have to find the figure whose likelihood matches your anticipated run of bets. In this case, that would mean betting 1/440th of the bank, so that in the event of that run, only 25% was knocked out. Of course, 1/440th of $1000 is only about $2.20, so you'd want to have a big bank.

I don't know, this is why I posed the question in the first place - to try and find the way of working out what is a SAFE level but not a DEAD level at which to punt, given a method's strike rate. Perhaps I just answered my own question?

Must run now, my Grade 3 class starts shortly, teacher said we're learning about the Magic Faraway Tree today.

[partypooper]

My 2 cents worth which is probably worth about that (2 cents) as I have only been betting for 42 years, but I still contend that you have to be prepared to lose at least 1 bank! E.G. AT THE PRESENT I have a plan that is showing 86% POT on total stakes BUT, without going into details is showing one maximum bank wiped out in the last 2 years and another that is looking VERY serious , in fact it all depends on 2 races next saturday!
BUT, even with 2 banks wiped out I am still showing a reasonable profit overall, puts a slightly different angle on things though, don't you think???

[crash]

Duritz,

You seem to be looking for a formula to guarantee you'll never lose more than a certain amount of your bank. It's a crock and no such formulas exists except beating the bookie over the long term. OK, so you want to make sure you can only ever lose a 1/3rd. of your bank? When you do, what then? Walk away from punting?

Most punters who just enjoy a punt on Saturdays, allow so much per week to punt with and divide it up for the amount of bets they have [don't knock them, it's cheap entertainment if the betting allowance is within their budget].

If however, the goal is to beat the races and using a betting bank, forget all the maths formulas and runs of outs garbage and leave it in the hands of the mathematicians here [there is at least one in this thread I know of ..Stebbo], or would be mathematicians here who enjoy that stuff. Just bet 2% of your bank each bet. It's a fairly acceptable and common percentage among Pro's and serious punters for very good reasons. $20 bet for $1000 bank and $2 bet for $100 allows for an awful lot of outs. Just round down to the nearest $1 or $5, depending on your bank size.

You'll either [very] slowly get rich ....or poor :-(

[jfc]

Crikey JFC...

Anyone who stakes according to the above Math needs to seriously reconsider their life as a gambler.

Cheers,
Chris.

Perhaps you should offer your juvenile paternalistic advice to Dr William Ziemba, who I presume recently co-authored a pertinent book with William Benter.

I'm prepared to bet that Benter is not the most successful gambler in the world as whoever that might be would probably shun publicity, but most people would be content with Benter's Powerball equivalent a year.

http://finmath.stanford.edu/seminars/docs/WilliamZiemba2004Win.ppt

[Duritz]

Sing it with me...

"Duritz is always running around, trying to find, certainty..."

[TWOBETS]

Re your post #30,
Risk of ruin calculator can be downloaded at www.twonix.com (http://www.twonix.com) under the heading "punting articles" at left of page.

[stebbo]

I just ran my Drawdown simulator for 1,000,000 trials @ 22% and $4.80 to contrast my results with your earlier ones.

Profits - Drawdown
$54,964 $226
$57,435 $219
$59,254 $241

Right now I'm unsure of the implications.

JFC,

does your simulator give you the longest run of outs as well? Putting that figure alongside the drawdown (which I shall assume is the maximum drawdown) might lend some credence or otherwise to Bhagwan's figure of 3.5

Cheers,
Chris.

[stebbo]

Duritz,

my experience is that you simply can't use the longest run of outs (your LFLS) as a basis of deciding your stake. As I mentioned in the other thread, if your longest run of outs is 10, you might get 10 outs, get a $1.80 winner, and then get another 10 outs. You're now 18.2 units out of pocket, but your longest run of outs is still only 10.

If you do use the figure of 10, then your idea of only losing 25% of bank is remarkably similar to Bhagwans 3.5 figure... but I can tell you that you will very likely push the boundaries of your entire bank, not just 25% of the bank.

If you use a Maximum Drawdown figure, then you can safely bet to lose a much larger percentage of bank than your suggested 25%. IMHO, if you have a good idea of your expected MaxDD, then only banking to lose 25% of your bank is a little too conservative.

Cheers,
Chris.

[crash]

Duritz,

Horse racing is part of the futures market. Not a place for the faint hearted and although we do our best to protect ourselves, certainty against failure will never be part of that market unless we never bet on it.

[woof43]

Hi jfc,
here is a spreadsheet you might find interesting, while your on the subject of Dr. Z.
If your interested the sheet can be adjusted to Aussie racing by deleting the bottom half and making a few adjustments in the top half of the sheet.
If you understand his work on the Golden section you'll get great benefits from the sheet.

[KennyVictor]

I just ran my Drawdown simulator for 1,000,000 trials @ 22% and $4.80 to contrast my results with your earlier ones.

Profits - Drawdown
$54,964 $226
$57,435 $219
$59,254 $241

Right now I'm unsure of the implications.

Hmm, I'll check mine out tomorrow and put a longest run of losses into it, I've just finished a 1000Km drive so I'm not functioning well at the moment. I would have expected better agreement than that between our figures. But then after 1,000,000 bets with an expected return of 105.6% I would have expected the profit to have been closer to 56,000 each time.
How does yours work?

KV

Ah, I just got a maximum drawdown of 378.4 with yours on the fifth go and figures of 332.4, 260.4 and 255.6 with mine on three consecutive goes. Must be the random element.

[KennyVictor]

I don't bet to live I bet to accumulate so to me not losing the bank is THE most important thing. I try to arrange it so that it will never happen because I know if it does that will be it for me, I will stop punting and move on to something else. You seem almost as cautious as I am Duritz so I'll tell you what I do.
I get a worst drawdown figure over 10 years of bets and then add half again to that figure for safety. That is my starting bet percentage. I bet level stakes never decreasing but increasing when the bank increases. My next increase also has a bit of safety built in. Say I am betting 0.5% of the bank ($1 for every $200) I will wait until the bank grows by $250 before I increase the bet by a dollar. That way as my bank increases I also increase my safety margin. It's fairly simple and just a minor (more cautious) variation on staking systems we've all seen on here before but it makes me feel safe.

KV

[Duritz]

Yep. I understand that, I too don't bet to live. I earn full time and punting is separate. Luckily for me I earn from horse racing, but that's besides the point. My interest therefore is like yours, to grow a bank rather than to withdraw dividends from it.

[jfc]

Hi jfc,
here is a spreadsheet you might find interesting, while your on the subject of Dr. Z.
If your interested the sheet can be adjusted to Aussie racing by deleting the bottom half and making a few adjustments in the top half of the sheet.
If you understand his work on the Golden section you'll get great benefits from the sheet.

Woof,

I'm flabbergasted at the disinterest shown here in Dr Z and the Benter video (you highlighted earlier). Why are you and I the only 2 interested in the mathematical "secrets" to maximising wealth?

I'm stunned that anyone would go to so much effort to produce that spreadsheet.

Possum (who appears to be a frightfully decent fellow) has a free JavaScript place calculator which presumably has a similar purpose.

http://www.geocities.com/possum_31415/place.htm

Although I'm in the process of a very detailed study of Dr Z's material I'm sceptical about his claims that "his" stuff still works in 2004. Sharks, armed with Native American kickbacks, would have been exploiting and crushing this for years.

[KennyVictor]

I'm flabbergasted at the disinterest shown here in Dr Z and the Benter video (you highlighted earlier). Why are you and I the only 2 interested in the mathematical "secrets" to maximising wealth?


Out of the 25 views of Dr_Z I'd say half were expecting "The cat in the Hat".
We are but simple folk here.

KV

[crash]

JFC,

Quote: "I'm flabbergasted at the disinterest shown here in Dr Z and the Benter video (you highlighted earlier). Why are you and I the only 2 interested in the mathematical "secrets" to maximising wealth?" End quote.

If you have any serious money to bet with, the bookies are lining up to send a limo around, to get you both started on your road to riches:-)

[moeee]

JFC.
And Einstein and all you other scientists!
You are all very clever.
But you take the fun out of gambling.
Bit like that bloke who tells you the answer as to why that woman wasn't really sawn in half.
I know she wasn't really sawn in half.But it sure is entertaining.

[stebbo]

Ok Duritz....

I have whipped up a quick application and run some numbers....

I have done 5,000 separate tests of a run of 2,000 bets. I didn't bother going out to 1,000,000 bets unlike others, as I don't expect to ever have 1,000,000 bets for any one of my strategies.... I can fully expect to have 2,000 bets though, so it's a little more realistic.

I calculated Longest Run of Outs and Maximum drawdown based upon the original 22% Strike Rate and $4.80 dividend. I then averaged these over the 5,000 separate tests. For the "average" I used the arithmetic mean. The simulation isn't ideal as we don't have a spread of dividends, but it's probably close enough.

The average Longest Run of Outs for 2000 bets was 26.47.
The average Maximum Drawdown for 2000 bets was 73.20 units.

The ratio of Maximum Drawdown to LRO averaged out to 2.77. Therefore, Bhagwan's ratio of 3.5 is not too far from the mark. If you expect to have a LRO of 30, then you should expect your MaxDD to be around 100.

What does this mean for staking????? Simply calculate your MaxDD and then structure your betting bank to withstand that drawdown. For a 100 unit MaxDD, then you should only be betting 1% of your bank if you decide to bet flat stakes.

Following on from your most recent post, if your plan is to accumulate a bank, then I would recommend that you bet 1% of your bank non-reducing. This means that as your bank increases you increase your bets, but when it decreases you do NOT decrease your bet. I have been using this method of staking for quite a long period of time now, and it has stood me in good stead.

Cheers,
Chris.

[crash]

Increasing betting amount when WINNING is the only progressive staking plan that [in the long run]works. Otherwise stick to flat stakes.

[BJ]

Increasing betting amount when WINNING is the only progressive staking plan that [in the long run]works. Otherwise stick to flat stakes.

If it has truly been proven that a staking plan will only exaggerate the effects of a negative expectation game, then would it not do the same on the reverse?
If you are profiting level stakes, would you not expect to improve this by a proggressive staking system?

[partypooper]

A vauge angle that none of us wants to admit to..........the lady herself, LUCK,
e.g.
I've been operating a win system betting week to week race to race at Belmont/Ascot, 2 weeks ago I'd reached my maximum bet on race 6 (I think, can't be bothered looking) the horse was "Electic" it finished 6th beaten 1-1/4 lengths (the unluckiest loser this year) anyway it broke my bank on that particular race, so what happens the next week??? Yup! Electic @ $8.60c!!!

[Bhagwan]

Hi Duritz,
The runs of outs was arrived at by running 10x10,000 simulations.

You may like to keep a copy of this as a ready reconner , it is fairly accurate

%SR---Max Outs
10%---65
15---42
20---31
25---24
30---20
35---16
40---14
45---12
50---10
55---9
60---8
70---6
80---5
90---3

This is a start to working out what your bank to bet size could be .
The 3.5 multiplier X run of outs, is as resonable as anything else , but at the end of the day one has to have some ability in picking selections that win at resonable divs. so as to acquire a profit.

You could ignore all this as rubbish as our arrogant friends suggest & listen to only them alone .
I can only feel they were not the oldest in their family & had to yell loader than any one else to make themselves heard when they felt they were being ignored & by trying to invalidate others ,helps to to feed their imature egos.
PS
Could you please tell JFC to JGF.
And take his Dr. Z & Cat in a Hat with him.

Cheers.

[gazman]

that means at max drawdown you would be betting way more than 1% of your bank,i thought this was all about the reduction of risk....at your rundown what would the% after 26 loses.........cheers,,gazman...

[w924]

Your figures are pretty much what I work to, and despite what some people may believe, it is inevitable that one will encounter runs of outs to match those figures... if my punting experience is anything to go by. Almost all of my various plans have run to their maximum expected run of outs at least once.

Stebbo correctly points out that once that maximum expected run of outs has been met and ended, there is absolutely nothing to stop the same run repeating itself immediately after the previous drought-breaking winner.

Runs of ouits is one of the prime reasons, I believe, why no amount of posting of succesful methods on this forum will ever dent prices on offer for any significant period of time.

[KennyVictor]

Ok Duritz....

I have whipped up a quick application and run some numbers....

I have done 5,000 separate tests of a run of 2,000 bets. I didn't bother going out to 1,000,000 bets unlike others, as I don't expect to ever have 1,000,000 bets for any one of my strategies.... I can fully expect to have 2,000 bets though, so it's a little more realistic.

I calculated Longest Run of Outs and Maximum drawdown based upon the original 22% Strike Rate and $4.80 dividend. I then averaged these over the 5,000 separate tests. For the "average" I used the arithmetic mean. The simulation isn't ideal as we don't have a spread of dividends, but it's probably close enough.

The average Longest Run of Outs for 2000 bets was 26.47.
The average Maximum Drawdown for 2000 bets was 73.20 units.

The ratio of Maximum Drawdown to LRO averaged out to 2.77. Therefore, Bhagwan's ratio of 3.5 is not too far from the mark. If you expect to have a LRO of 30, then you should expect your MaxDD to be around 100.

What does this mean for staking????? Simply calculate your MaxDD and then structure your betting bank to withstand that drawdown. For a 100 unit MaxDD, then you should only be betting 1% of your bank if you decide to bet flat stakes.

Following on from your most recent post, if your plan is to accumulate a bank, then I would recommend that you bet 1% of your bank non-reducing. This means that as your bank increases you increase your bets, but when it decreases you do NOT decrease your bet. I have been using this method of staking for quite a long period of time now, and it has stood me in good stead.

Cheers,
Chris.

Stebbo,
I feel you are doing our friend Duritz a mis-service by offering this advice. Using JFC's simulator I did only 5 runs of 2000 bets and got maximum drawdowns of 46, 120, 66, 57 and 65. The average maxDD here is only 49 so you could say I was "luckier" than you who averaged 73.
Now poor Duritz who was probably thanking you for your advice after the first 2000 bets would still be using 1% of his bank non-reducing during the second batch of 2000 bets and whammo. His drawdown of 120 units would have sent him back to his day job.
Averaging a bunch of 2000 bet batches is not SAFE. Look at your 5000 figures for maxDD and count how many times you would have blown your bank at 1%. On my five figures you have a 1 in 5 chance of losing ALL your money for each batch of 2000 bets. Maybe that's OK if you are one of these people who have a lot of banks running concurrently (and I'm not knocking that) but if you rely on one bank like I do, no thanks. I doubt if I'll ever have a million bets either but it gives a more realistic view of what can happen when "Sod's Law" comes in to play.

KV

[Duritz]

Yeah I'm like KV, don't want to lose bank and don't run more than one.

Thanks though Stebbo, it all contributes to getting a good feel for what I should do.

Again, Bhagwan, I like the idea of the 3.5 ratio, though I had independently set it at 4.0 (therefore lose 1/4 of bank when longest "anticipatable" losing streak is struck). Thanks for the "ready reckoner", handy to have.

Who is this Dr Z fella? And does he know how to fix my sore neck?

[moeee]

DURITZ.

A bank is a bank.And if the bank goes,then all is lost.
Unless you have a reserve bank.
At your suggestion of 22% strike rate,there is a 1% chance,(yes-A hundred to one),of there being a losing streak of 60.
That is over a run of 100,000 bets.
So if you ain't daunted by the prospect of a hundred to one chance of your bank being wiped out,then 1.5% of your bank is quite in order.
OR IS IT?

Problem arises if two long losing streaks occur close together.
Supposing we just had a run of 30 outs,which will happen.
Then a winner or two followed by a string of 30 or so losers.
I suggest that this scenario is also about a 100 to one chance.

So your answer is 1.5%,if you can handle a hundred to one chance of losing your bank before losing your life.
100,000 bets is a lot of bets!

[stebbo]

Averaging a bunch of 2000 bet batches is not SAFE. Look at your 5000 figures for maxDD and count how many times you would have blown your bank at 1%.

Hi Kenny,

averaging the figures may not be entirely safe, but it's probably as safe as anything else we're doing around here. :-)

Running my 5000 tests, then all things being equal, there's a little more than a 12% chance of losing the bank if betting 1% of bank.

I doubt if I'll ever have a million bets either but it gives a more realistic view of what can happen when "Sod's Law" comes in to play.

Why don't we go to 1 billion bets then... on one single test, the LRO is 90 and the MaxDD is 460 units. I can tell you right now that there would be very few punters who would keep betting a strategy if they got 90 losers in a row. I would reckon that most punters would ditch a new system if they got 10 or 20 losers in their first 10 or 20 bets..... These sorts of numbers are great for academic purposes, but get thrown out the window in RL.

Should we seriously start betting this strategy with 0.2% of bank? If we did, then I'd need $25,000 to begin with a $50 bet and a chance to actually make serious money.... I'd much rather put that $25,000 to work over a number of strategies...

This is, after all, punting... It's a gamble. I'm in it for the money, and I'm quite prepared to lose a bank on a bad run if it means I can actually make some serious money from it. I only ever bet as low as 1% of bank on longshot systems... My usual percentages are 2%, 2.5% or 3%. (one particular longshot system I run at 1% has already had a maximum drawdown of 87 units.... that was a harrowing time, but it bounced back very nicely indeed)

I also add some other bank saving procedures to my punting... Once I double a bank, I start to slowly syphon my original starting bank out of the pool. This allows me to introduce new methods to my aresenal. I have a number of strategies who's starting banks are in the negative numbers... meaning that I can never lose on those stratgies :-)

that means at max drawdown you would be betting way more than 1% of your bank,i thought this was all about the reduction of risk....at your rundown what would the% after 26 loses.........cheers,,gazman...

Gazman, you are correct in your assertion that I'm betting more than 1% of my *remaining* bank when I'm in the middle of a bad run. However the key to this game is not necessarily about reducing risk. It's about balancing risk and reward. If I'm confident that my bank can ride out the bad run, then I'm prepared to take on the risk involved.

Cheers,
Chris.

[KennyVictor]

Why don't we go to 1 billion bets then... on one single test, the LRO is 90 and the MaxDD is 460 units. I can tell you right now that there would be very few punters who would keep betting a strategy if they got 90 losers in a row. I would reckon that most punters would ditch a new system if they got 10 or 20 losers in their first 10 or 20 bets..... These sorts of numbers are great for academic purposes, but get thrown out the window in RL.

Should we seriously start betting this strategy with 0.2% of bank? If we did, then I'd need $25,000 to begin with a $50 bet and a chance to actually make serious money.... I'd much rather put that $25,000 to work over a number of strategies...


Hey Stebbo,

I guess we end this discussion in the usual way with the ever truthful comment of "Each to his own".
You see, I get quite some comfort from your Billion bet experiment. A MaxDD of 460 is not a great deal more than I was getting for a million bets. It looks like the MaxDD is like one of those exponential shaped curves that rises sharply at the start and then levels out at around the 460 - 500 mark. I wouldn't mind betting also that the variability from run to run on consecutive runs of the same number of bets would even out when the number of bets is high - wheras they vary a lot (proportionately) in the 2000 bet range - I think this is important too.
Now if I had a $25,000 bank to use I would feel quite comfortable using it knowing that there is little chance of it reaching 0 if I made a billion bets. I wouldn't risk it in a fit if I thought there was a 12% chance of it dissappearing.
But then I don't regard backing horses as gambling - I'm one of these weirdos who consider it an investment. :-)

May your MaxDD never exceed your bank and your POT grow luxuriantly.

KV

[partypooper]

I agree KV, many plans may lose overall, but some spectacular runs, the winners do seem to come in clumps. Therefore i think it makes sense to try and capitalise on these with an agressive approach with a fixed bank that you are prepared to lose.

[stebbo]

Now if I had a $25,000 bank to use I would feel quite comfortable using it knowing that there is little chance of it reaching 0 if I made a billion bets. I wouldn't risk it in a fit if I thought there was a 12% chance of it dissappearing.
But then I don't regard backing horses as gambling - I'm one of these weirdos who consider it an investment. :-)

Hi KV,

as you say, each to their own. One thing I've learned in this game is that there are many ways to skin the punting cat....

If the best I could do was a 22% S/R and $4.80 dividend, then I'd take that $25,000 and split it into 5 banks. I'd bet 1% of bank for each bank. I'd find 5 different strategies that gave me the 22/4.8.

While there's a 12.5% chance I'd lose one bank, there's around a 0.003% chance that I'll lose all five banks. With 5 banks in operation, I'll be betting about 5 times as many bets, I'll be turning over about 5 times as much money, and presumably making about 5 times as much actual PROFIT.

Like you, I consider this an investment... I make my money work very hard for me... At the present, I turn my original punting bank over about once every 8 to 10 days.

Happy Punting.

Cheers,
Chris.

[DR RON]

While on the question of losing runs, could somebody please give me a possible losing run figure for the following, assuming betting three selections per race

20% s/r
15% s/r
13% s/r

that is if three horses with the strike rates mentioned were backed in each race what would be a possible run of outs? I can work out individual figures but am unnsure how to work out the combined figures. Thanks

[BJ]

While on the question of losing runs, could somebody please give me a possible losing run figure for the following, assuming betting three selections per race

20% s/r
15% s/r
13% s/r

that is if three horses with the strike rates mentioned were backed in each race what would be a possible run of outs? I can work out individual figures but am unnsure how to work out the combined figures. Thanks

Ummm.. So why not combine them and work it out?

Total strike rate of 48%. Would this not work?

[Silver_and_sand]

I'm not sure you can do that Dr. Ron. For instance, what happens when you have 3 horses in a race that all have 100% win strike rates? Does that mean that it will be a 3 way dead heat?

[DR RON]

thanks bj, sometimes I cant see the forrest for the trees. I just assumed it would be more complicated than that.

silver and sand, the strike rates are for a particular selection method and not the actual win % of the horses as such.

[crash]

I think you would have to add the three % figures together and then divide by 3 first and then work out The LRO for that figure for your average.
Adding the initial SR % together would be the wrong way to go I think without dividing by 3.

Where are the mathematicians here when you need them?

[crash]

Average for the 3 figures is 16% so LRO is 40.

A table from Bagman:

%SR---Max Outs
10%---65
15---42
20---31
25---24
30---20
35---16
40---14
45---12
50---10
55---9
60---8
70---6
80---5
90---3

[BJ]

I think you would have to add the three % figures together and then divide by 3 first and then work out The LRO for that figure for your average.
Adding the initial SR % together would be the wrong way to go I think without dividing by 3.

Where are the mathematicians here when you need them?


But if you are looking for a run of outs for number of races, then surely it makes no difference how many horses per race. The total strike rate is 48% and should be treated as such.

Are you suggesting that with a strike rate like that, he can expect to have 40 losses in a row?

My strike rate at the moment is 34% and my longest run of outs to date is 17, which against that list is extremely accurate.
But I think that since I have only been going for 7 months now, I can expect a much worse run.


I do understand kind of what you are trying to say Crash, but I think if that were the correct avenue, then the final figure would have to be divided by 3 again, giving an answer closer to 13.3.

[stebbo]

But if you are looking for a run of outs for number of races, then surely it makes no difference how many horses per race. The total strike rate is 48% and should be treated as such.

As long as the three strategies were guaranteed to pick different horses then it would be acceptable to add the probabilities together and estimate your LRO based on that. However, as soon as the strategies starting picking only one or two horses per race, then the math becomes very tricky.

If it were easy to do, then it might be useful to find the S/R when all three strategies select the same horse, and work from there. This should give a pretty good "worst case scenario".

Cheers,
Chris.

[DR RON]

As long as the three strategies were guaranteed to pick different horses then it would be acceptable to add the probabilities together and estimate your LRO based on that. However, as soon as the strategies starting picking only one or two horses per race, then the math becomes very tricky.

If it were easy to do, then it might be useful to find the S/R when all three strategies select the same horse, and work from there. This should give a pretty good "worst case scenario".

Cheers,
Chris.

Stebbo, they are always different horses, being the first three ranked for my method.

[Bhagwan]

With 3 horses per race it would be treated the same as one horse running a place.

The combined figure of 48% for the 3 horses, would have an expected run of outs of
approx. 11 of one of the 3 horses not getting up .

[Duritz]

Considering you said they are always three horse's then all you need to do is add them up, combined 48% is your chance, BJ was spot on.

[KennyVictor]

Hi Duritz,

Back on the original subject, I did some further checking on the efficacy of the simulators we have made. My system at home runs through about 10 years of races testing itself against past results and giving a strike rate, profit margin and maximum drawdown figure. I thought I would test the simulator I created back at the start of this thread against those figures and without exception the maximum drawdown figure (using the system's strike rate and profit margin) was less (averaging around half) of that given in the "real world". JFC's simulator gave similar results.
I suppose we should expect this. The simulators are assuming a regular return with regular and equal dividends when the results in the real world are probably going to be more lumpy than just pure random figures (seasonal variations and who knows what else). This is using a system averaging about 14% strike rate and $8 ish divvies so the relative low strike rate may exascerbate the difference but I think (a cautious man like yourself may find) it is worth noting.

KV

[stugots]

i came across this thread whilst trying to work out my likely worst run of outs/ bank(s) required etc etc, & it was well worth another read so ive given it a bump

being no mathematician & after reading through it all & comprehending 65.7895% of it all, the following post stuck me as spot on as soon as i read it


My 2 cents worth which is probably worth about that (2 cents) as I have only been betting for 42 years, but I still contend that you have to be prepared to lose at least 1 bank! E.G. AT THE PRESENT I have a plan that is showing 86% POT on total stakes BUT, without going into details is showing one maximum bank wiped out in the last 2 years and another that is looking VERY serious , in fact it all depends on 2 races next saturday!
BUT, even with 2 banks wiped out I am still showing a reasonable profit overall, puts a slightly different angle on things though, don't you think???


i have to agree, be prepared to lose a bank or 2, as there's no use being overly protective of ones bank & therefore sacrificing profits when the going is good

[Bhagwan]

I think those Banking chaps in the USA must of heeded the good advice &

took up the idea, that it really is not a bad idea to loose a few banks.

I think they must have had a different interpretation some how.

When do you think they felt that they may have a little problem on their hands.

Was it the first billion or the 100th billion?

I was reading that one of those bank chaps decided he didn't like working in a bank no more & took up his Golden Parachute payment of $98Mil & was ordered by the Senate committee to hand back 25mill of it.

Imagine what he would have said to his wife when he got back home...
"How was your day dear?"
"Oh, alright, I guess, I've had better days"

Yeah right!... and some.

So let that be a lesson for all us punters.
Know when to cut your losses & know where your at with them .
Unlike those silly boys in the States who pay themselve millions while ballsing up the entire American Empire, the largest economy in the world and allowed to walk around scott free!

Weird!

[Bhagwan]

Hi Duritz
One idea is to look up what the theoretical run of outs is, then multiply that figure by say approx 3-4 this gives you the run of outs for the bank to withstand.

10% SR theoretical run of outs is 65
20% SR ................................ 31
25% .................................... 24

e.g.
10% Selections
65 x 3 = 195 units needed

20% selections
31 x 3 = 93 units needed.


Another recommended plan is to bet 1/200th of your bank for each day.
Re-adjust staking for the day based on remainder of bank.
e.g. Bank was 1000 betting 1/200th = 5 units a bet.
New day. Remaining bank 900 / 200 = $4.50 unit bets for the day.

We adjust bank up or down based on what the bank is
Sometimes referred to as , bet percentage of bank, up & down.

Cheers.

[stugots]

lol Bhagwan, point taken

& backup or 3 is of course essential, something that perhaps our american friends failed to provide for...but then again theres always the federal govt to bail them out

wonder what a punters equivalent of the fed gov is?

mayhap the missus!?
most likely the public trustees bankruptcy services...