Staking Plea

[Mad Gambler]

In the first 3 months Jan to March I bet on 130 races for 48 winners for a srike rate of 36.9% using 2 systems only on Sat and public hoilday meetings.

There were a total of 218 selection in those races.

Out--$218.00
in----$263.30

a profit at level stakes of $45.30 A 20.8% ROI

My question is that I''m going to do a dry run on paper using 2 banks of $500 of which one will be a reserve bank and bet 3% of the bank.

Any thoughts on this?

Mad Gambler

[Duritz]

Hi Mad Gambler - IMO 3% of bank is a lot. Not because of the actual cash outlay just if you have a bad streak, you'll quickly decimate your reserves.

I've been playing around with staking and bet sizes due to a system I'm developing (see a couple of other threads on this forum re that) and I am finding that a 1% increasing/reducing bet size gives you safety and profitability. Remember, both those things are vital - you'll have bad runs, sure as I'm good lookin'.

Good luck.

[manygeese]

If you have a system that works, forget percentage of bank. Fool's paradise.

Just decide what you expect your largest amount of outs or equivalent outs to be over a 12 month period.

By equivalent outs I mean you could have 5 then a winner that pays $4.00 then another 6 losers. At level stakes this is the equivalent of 8 outs.

On your strike rate you are going to say if this system is going to be profitable it will need to be able sustain 30 losers or the equivalent thereof at level stakes.

You are starting with $500.00 500/30 = 16. (approx)

Start at $16. Then when your bank gets to $510, move up to $17. (17 x 30 =510) Then when you get to $540 move up to 18 until you get to 100 dollars(bank of 3000 dollars) or whatever top stake level you reckon is a fair thing.

Then whenever you have an excess over 3000, that's profit.

30 might not be enough losers to allow for but much over that and you just have to say this selection method has problems.

If you bet percentage of bank you can you can support far to many losers.

Each to their own buts that way I see staking.

[Mad Gambler]

How do I calculate the run of outs.


Mad Gambler

[manygeese]

How do I calculate the run of outs.


Mad Gambler

No set way. But would you say that if you had 30 losses that your selection method was the goods?

You could look at all your winners by less than a length and classify them as losers and mulyiply this new numbers of losers by 2.5 and see what your max run of outs is on your so far sample.

To me that should give you a within reason figure of what you can expect to carry.

Just say you do start at $16.00 And your 500 dollars does vanish. At that point you can decide whether it is worth putting another $100.00 up (six losers) or that you have gone far enough with your selection method.

To give you an idea of what I mean, you work out how many losers you can have at 5 percent starting at 500 dollars. You'll find that it is a ridiculous amount.

[Duritz]

Number of expected losers is flawed because how many losers can you expect?

Really the most accurate thing is using the "maximum drawdown", ie maximum drop from the top level of your bank.

I have been testing a system which over two years and 6000 bets, with a strike rate of 26%, and had a max drawdown of 113 bets. That means that the worst drop from the previous maximum was 113 bets. If you're betting 3% of your bank.... 113 bets drop down and your f**ked. And this system wins, by the way, there's no selection problem etc, it's just that the punt and selection methods are volatile. You should allow for and work with this volatility.

[manygeese]

Number of expected losers is flawed because how many losers can you expect?

Really the most accurate thing is using the "maximum drawdown", ie maximum drop from the top level of your bank.

I have been testing a system which over two years and 6000 bets, with a strike rate of 26%, and had a max drawdown of 113 bets. That means that the worst drop from the previous maximum was 113 bets. If you're betting 3% of your bank.... 113 bets drop down and your f**ked. And this system wins, by the way, there's no selection problem etc, it's just that the punt and selection methods are volatile. You should allow for and work with this volatility.

Sounds like you have a bit of odds stuff in your strike rate.

[Duritz]

Not really - ave div $4.20, s/r 26%... just it went through a bad trot at one point. Punting is really cyclical, must prepare for that.

[manygeese]

Not really - ave div $4.20, s/r 26%... just it went through a bad trot at one point. Punting is really cyclical, must prepare for that.

If I have right, at least approximately you are winning 1 in 4 (well a whisker over) and the dividend is $4.20?

So in your 6000 invested you make $300 in two years. You can do better than with a bank term deposit. Perhaps I have something wrong.

[Duritz]

You have it a little wrong. 6000 selections, 26%, $4.20 = around 6500 collect if you only have $1 on each, but who only has $1 on each?? Even if you only have $10 on each you still make $5000 over the two years. Have $100 on each and you make $50,000 in two years.

[manygeese]

You have it a little wrong. 6000 selections, 26%, $4.20 = around 6500 collect if you only have $1 on each, but who only has $1 on each?? Even if you only have $10 on each you still make $5000 over the two years. Have $100 on each and you make $50,000 in two years.

100 bucks on each you invest 600,000 dollars. Collect 50,000. You can do much better with a bank over a two year period without involving a 11,300 dollar 'draw down' prospect.

To win at gambling ultimately you have to be able to build a bank, not make at the same rate as a bank offers.

I still could be wrong but I can't see it.

[Bhagwan]

Expected run of outs for 35% is 16
Based on 3 lots of 10,000

I believe one should have a bank of 3.0 x the longest theoretical run of outs.
In this case 48 , if betting level stakes.= 2% of bank.
1% of bank as mentioned prior would be even safer.

50 Point Staking Plan
Heres a safe staking plan one might like to experiment with.
Divisor starts at 50 divided into target of $100.
With a Starting Bank $200
Deduct win dividend price off the divisor after each win & deduct the profit off the target after each win so as to calculate the next bet.
Start from the beginning as soon as half of the target is won , in this case $50
This helps prevent the bets from becoming too large for the bank to cope with.
e.g.
Tar---Divisor--O/L---Dividend---P/L
100-----50-----2-----L
102-----50-----2-----L
104-----50-----2---w$11.00---+20
84------39-----2-----L
86------39-----2---w$6.00---+10
76------33-----2---w$14.00---+26
50------19-----3-----Objetive reached..We would now rule off & start from the beginning because we have reached our objective of reaching half the Target figure.

If one wants to start with a lower divisor (not recomended) , one will see how the bets become larger after a run of outs , so be prepared for it, because it will come , no matter how strong a selection method may be, its just part of punting.

Remember ---Punting does not owe us a living.

Cheers.

[Duritz]

The big thing you're forgetting ManyGeese is that you don't have the $600,000 to begin with. And betting $100 you don't need it - you only need $10,000. So, with $10,000 only level staking $100 each you make $50,000 in the two years. Show me a bank that will make you $50,000 interest over 2 years with a capital of $10,000. That's the point you're failing to see.

Also, I was talking about 1% increasing/reducing. With a $10,000 bank, $100 bets on each selection increasing/reducing (1%) your $10,000 actually becomes $168,000. Again, show me a bank that can make you $158,000 interest in two years off a $10,000 capital.

Bhagwan - your last commnt, ie that no matter how strong a selection method, runs of outs will occur, is exactly the point I am trying to make: one must be prepared for them, they will come. I therefore agree entirely with you. :)

[KennyVictor]

In the first 3 months Jan to March I bet on 130 races for 48 winners for a srike rate of 36.9%
Maybe my maths is weird but I make that a strike rate of 22%. You may have got 48 winners from 130 races but you actually got 48 winners from 218 bets. On your system I could bet every horse in every race and claim a strike rate of 100% :)

Using 22% and a average dividend of $5.48 over 218 bets I got a max drawdown between 15 and 32 as a rule over several runs. This would indicate a bet of perhaps 2% of bank might be safe.

BUT !!!!

218 bets is not enough to judge a system on - you may have had a good period or you may have had a bad one. The strike rate or average dividend could be quite different from the one you got in your test period.

Heres the maximum drawdown simulator if you want to play with it.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/jfc2000/drawdown.htm

KV

[KennyVictor]

I have been testing a system which over two years and 6000 bets, with a strike rate of 26%, and had a max drawdown of 113 bets.Have you tried the drawdown simulator Duritz? With your 4.20 dividend I got a max drawdown of 119 bets - remarkably similar to what you got in real life. Funny thing is I tried another 25 times and got values from about 40 - 92 so maybe your two year run was just a plain unlucky 1 in 25 year event. It could be a better system than you think.
KV

[Duritz]

Those are the words we want to hear KV!! Here here!!

[partypooper]

KV, hear hear, Duritz, I really think you've cracked it there. I have 3 seperate plans showing a profit now into the 3rd year but not as good as that, and I'm getting the absolute BEST returns available. (well as far as I know that is)

As far as the comparison to bank interest is concerned let's just GROAN!

Go for it mate!!

[manygeese]

groan. I guess the 8.5% bets per day is the secret. 8.5 that is.

[Duritz]

Have you tried the drawdown simulator Duritz? KV

Yep have KV - like you got varying results, did not record them at the time but they seemed to be around the 60-70 mark on average. I'm sure the biggest one was not much (if any) more than the 113 I've seen already in the research of this sys, so you may be right. May have a cracker. Am punting it, it's a mere three days old so far (and up 11 bets after three days, ripper of a start), I guess the proof will be in the punting.

[Duritz]

Manygeese - yeah that's part of it. Thing is, to compare it to a bank it's like a compound interest rate of 7% (the profit on turnover) which compounds a lot more times than the banks do.

[crash]

All nice theoreticals chaps, but even though Mannygeese's point about bank interest might have been a bit of the mark about capital, I think all the system clappers here are a bit off tap too.

OK the talk here is $100 bets and 2% of bank or !% was also mentioned for safety reasons. Show me a 1% membership here who has a betting bank [only] of $50k for 2% bets or $100k for 1% bets and I'll run down Bourke street naked !

In fact there would be very, very few punters here except perhaps Chrome, Party and probably Bagman [all the sensible and timid punters ;-)] who have a betting bank at all with much in it even if they do have one. No one leaves big amounts of money like that sitting in a special 'punting bank' only account unless they are a serious Pro. Punter [who are generally already rich from inheritance or business] or a fool. $100 bets[?] yep, lots here can afford those, but not representing 1 or 2% of any punting bank a few punters here might have. I like 99% of all punters don't have one. I bet from capital I can [mostly] afford to lose. Nothing else.

Most punters have stuff all 'punting bank' and bet by the seat of there dacks from what they can afford each week for punting [and from the rent money for the real desperadoes]. I have never in my 35yr. punting life [in the real world] met a punter who has a dedicated 'punting money only' bank big enough to do even 2% of bank bets that would make up a $20 bet let alone a $100 bet. They mostly bet from what they can afford each week.

Even the rich mostly use general capital for punting, not a specific 'punting bank'. Well off Pro. punters, sure. Everyone else: $50k to $100k punting banks? Give me a break, I'm killing myself laughing:-) lol lol

Anyhow, feel free to fib. and disagree with me. This is cyberspace after all and not the real world :-)

[Duritz]

lol. Fair points, and though I won't fib and say I have a 50K punting bank, I certainly well and truly fall into your "never in my life" category. And I do have a dedicated punting bank. (Built by winnings)

[crash]

....and how much would a 2% bet be? :-)

[Duritz]

Though that would be "telling" a 2% bet would be a little more than what you said when you said an amount directly before the amount which was the let alone amount.

[Duritz]

lol i've confused myself there. Let me start again. If I were to bet 2%, my average bet size would be about $100.

[crash]

50k punting bank Duritz ? You must be rich or even more confused maybe?.

If you have $50k just sitting in a bank account just for punting [crazy], you certainly don't have a wife [she'd never let you get away with that], kids and or a mortgage. Then again like I said, this is cyberspace. Everything is 'real' here :-)

[crash]

lol. Fair points, and though I won't fib and say I have a 50K punting bank, I certainly well and truly fall into your "never in my life" category. And I do have a dedicated punting bank. (Built by winnings)

You must be confused. You have said here you havn't got a $50k punting bank[?] 2% of $50k is a $100 bet isn't it or else I'm defused in the head[?]

Quote Duritz: "lol i've confused myself there. Let me start again. If I were to bet 2%, my average bet size would be about $100".

[Duritz]

Nope Crash, 2% of a 50K punting bank is $1000.

[Duritz]

LOL - just read your second post. (the one about the wife etc). The wife/mortgage and kids - I've got the trifecta there....but the wife is happy there's a dedicated punting bank b/c it means I never bet our dough.

I have a mortgage because real estate is the one safe bet there is. I work and save etc b/c I want more real estate. I keep the punting separate because that way you have the best true guide of if you're winning or losing - your balance.

[crash]

All this talk of big $ numbers. I 'm having a 'senior's moment'.

[Duritz]

It's all right old fella. Only two hours till that nice meals on wheels lady arrives.

[crash]

I'd be careful about real estate at the moment Duritz [the smart money has already sold it at the peek]. Our personal overseas debt is a debt 'Road-Train' not a debt truck. All that money comes from OS and our debt covering ca lateral is starting to look shaky [or has been sold off]. Interest rates will go up with the increased risk to lenders [mostly Asian and Chinese].

Commodities are faced with the huge competition coming on tap now world-wide to flog to China [mostly]. They are no longer a captive buyer. We are heading for the financial sin-bin. Thank Howard for the illusion of prosperity for 10 yrs. based on a fake housing boom and real commodity boom [about to be hit with big competition finally].

[crash]

It's all right old fella. Only two hours till that nice meals on wheels lady arrives.

Your not far from the mark there. This place is 'God's Waiting room' after all:-)

[Duritz]

Thanks for the tip re real estate. Big interest rate rises would stop me from investing in another property. If that were to happen and if commodities were to crash I think I'd just put all savings in continually into my offset account for my house mortgage, let it earn "interest by proxy" by decreasing my interest payments. I've crunched the numbers on having savings offset against your mortgage - big savings down the track if you don't spend it.

Who knows, if this sys takes off I might buy an investment property outright!!! (nah, wouldn't do that...!)

[crash]

My daughter is a real estate agent in Melb. Forget all the 'up' talk from them, in reality it's 'hitting the fan' with far too many people financially overexposed she says. The rental market is falling [through the floor] on inner city investment property that was way over-sold and over built. Even here in [small]Paynesville on the Gippsland lakes, there are over 250 properties for sale and over 50 perm rentals empty. The ass is out of the coastal 'sea change' market in most places.

2 commodities go up in economic downturns and recessions [for certain every time], gambling and alcohol. No, I don't mean drink and punt more [that's what everyone else will be doing], buy shares in those ventures ;-)

[Duritz]

That's a super tip - makes perfect sense. I brew my own beer so I'll probably invest more in that ;P, but local beer shares (CUB?) may be a go - if there's a recession, people won't be buying the boutique beers no more!!!

[Duritz]

Re the overexposure of real estate - our mortgage is very manageable. If it does really hit the fan re interest rates etc we'll probably wait a little then try to buy something as the prices inevitably fall, b/c the fall will only be temporary in the longer scheme of things.

[Duritz]

It occurs to me that we may have gotten slightly away from the original topic of this thread.

Not much.... just a teency weency bit.

[crash]

We got hit buying at almost the top of the 80's property boom [we bought cash with a bit of a windfall we had at the time]. It was a long wait of until 2004 until we go out with a decent profit. Worth the wait because we could afford it [no mortgage] but only doubled our original high purchase price.

Many sold at massive losses when interest rates reached 17% because they had too. They couldn't afford the mortgage payments. One woman we knew near us was paying $800 [80's] a month mortgage on an 1 bedroom apartment she could have rented for $300. Sold for half the purchase price because the payments were killing her.

People think that will never happen again. Oh it will and has before too.

[crash]

It occurs to me that we may have gotten slightly away from the original topic of this thread.

Not much.... just a teency weency bit.

Yep, another 'senior's moment' there I think. Now what is keeping those meals on wheels ladies [?] It must be lunch time soon !!

[Shaun]

With my betting i will go with percentage of bank any time and i look at my profits as P.O.T and if i can make between 10% and 20% i am happy no matter how much i bet......i have seen lots of talk of a max drawdown is there a downloadable calculator for this some where or can you give me the formulat so i can make one......

[Duritz]

Here you go Shaun and Mad Gambler -

http://home.iprimus.com.au/jfc2000/drawdown.htm


That's what you want. Run the simulation 25 times and you'll get an idea of what you can expect the maximum one to be.

[partypooper]

Crash 'n' all, re: punting bank. You are correct crash, the bank is theoretical as far as the investments are concerned. In my case the "bank" IS available, but as a re-draw from my mortgage account. I would be total nut to keep that sort of money in a betting account or even in a cash management account.
They charge me $10 a month to keep the account open (as there is $0 balance) now, whether or not I would get cold feet after 25% of my bank dissappeared or 50% etc etc. Not sure, hope I never have to make that decision, but this where that drawdown figure is so important and especially timing, as if I'm losing previous winnings it's a hell of a lot different to a long losing stretch from a self funded bank.

But, make sure you have a "fig leaf" hee hee!

[Chrome Prince]

if I'm losing previous winnings it's a hell of a lot different to a long losing stretch from a self funded bank.


Spot on - the mental torture is unbelievable too :(

[Shaun]

Can i run some figures and tell me what you think.


I have a method the produces 34.25% winners at an average price of $3.22 i ran this on that page and this is what i get

10.29 edge
-0.18 profit/loss
12.8 max drawdown
8 longest run of outs
i ran this over 100 times

well as for the longest outs i have had a run of 13 outs so thats a bit off there.

can you expalin what these meen i know what the edge is because that my P.O.T

[Chrome Prince]

Can i run some figures and tell me what you think.


I have a method the produces 34.25% winners at an average price of $3.22 i ran this on that page and this is what i get

10.29 edge
-0.18 profit/loss
12.8 max drawdown
8 longest run of outs
i ran this over 100 times

well as for the longest outs i have had a run of 13 outs so thats a bit off there.

can you expalin what these meen i know what the edge is because that my P.O.T

Shaun how can the profit/loss be negative?

Maximum drawdown is the largest drop from a bank peak.

[Shaun]

I must have done somthing wrong...i re ran the test

10.29% edge
3.04 profit/loss
18.48 max drawdown
13 longest run of outs
100 times


funny how i was just saying i had a 13 run of outs and in the nest test it gets the same

PSS go to that webpage and put in the numbers i have given 34.25% average price $3.22 100 times and press the simulate button a couple of times and watch the numbers change....strange how can this be accurate if they change in such a big way


Number of trials is that like number of selections

[partypooper]

Take that as an example, Bank of $50k, bets of $1000 each (personally I would be betting only $500 with a $50k bank but still) so in theory the largest drawdown is $18,500.

So if the "bank" stood at say $60K+ b4 that drastic reduction, you may well be able to handle it, but if you lost $18,500 from a starting bank of $50k, I reckon you would need to double the "Coversil" tablets......

[Chrome Prince]

I play the safe game, and although it might cost me, the idea is to preserve the bank or at least some of the profit.

I stop betting if I've lost half my bank to reasses, or if I've doubled my bank, stop if half the profit goes.

[KennyVictor]

Hi Shaun,

Chance of winning and Decimal odds I'm sure you've got right. Number of trials is the number of bets you want to simulate the system over. Maybe you could enter in the number of bets you expect to make over a year.

The edge is the profit you can expect from getting an expected divvy (as entered) every how ever many bets (chance of winning percentage as entered) this won't change how ever many bets coz you still should be winning at the same rate overall.

The simulator then runs a random number generator to see if you would have won or lost each bet in the number of trials you set.
The profit comes from the result of the random number generator allowing you how ever many wins from the number of bets you selected.
The maximum drawdown is the drop from your highest point (after a win probably) to your following lowest point. This is important because if you started betting on the day when your highest point had been reached you may have been unlucky and got to your lowest point before you started winning again. If the drawdown is bigger than your bank it's return to go, don't collect $200.
Longest run of outs is just that maximum number of consecutive lost bets.

Duritz suggested you run it a few times because rather like horse racing the random element can give you better or worse outcomes over the same number of bets. This gives you a range of likely maximum drawdowns and allows you to judge the percentage of your bank you feel like risking.

Hope this helps
KV

[marcus25]

Hi all!
If anyone has the race venue, race date, race number, horse number- or name, of the selections to qualify in your system, in some sort of file, I can run it through past results and give an accurate drawdown and profit- loss figure. Don't want to know how you get the selections!!!
Just an offer of help while I have some spare time.
Cheers

[crash]

Most new businesses go broke due to under capitalization. That's our big problem too I think. The capital to kick ass when we are on to something and return a meaningful return in serious $$$. Stuff % POT. It might sound good but we are mostly talking peanuts in actual $$$.

[Duritz]

Yeah it's one of those rock-and-a-hard-place scenarios: as someone earlier said, you don't want to mortgage the mortgage in order to get a punting bank because your nerves (and marriage) will be in tatters when the inevitable losing streak lobs on the doorstep (and likely beginning at bet #1), so ideally you want to do it out of punting winnings - but if you had a massive bank of punting winnings you wouldn't be inventing a system, because whatever you were doing would be obviously working a treat!

[Shaun]

Yeah i kinda worked it out....i don't thimk my first post was a mistake it was an example of how things can go wrong if you run these figures in the page 20 times see the different results

win 34.25%
average dive $3.22
run over 600 bets that would be the average for the your

run that 20 times and see what you get.

[KennyVictor]

Reckon I just ran it 50 times at least and always got between 11 and 55 Max drawdown. Always turned a profit though and Max drawdown centred about the 25 mark.

So, you could bet 1% of your bank with utter confidence (provided nothing changes) and if you like the thrill of gambling get away with 2% in all but about 2 in 50 years of punting.

The results look pretty reasonable to me. Seemed to be following a pretty typical bell curve type of distribution with only a few exceptionally high and low results. Don't know about you but I have no problems with what it's showing me.

KV

[lomaca]

Reckon I just ran it 50 times at least and always got between 11 and 55 Max drawdown. Always turned a profit though and Max drawdown centred about the 25 mark.
KV
Hi KV!
Hope I am not a 'persona non grata' in your book?
One question regarding the drawdown calculator, Don't you think introducing a random element into an already, more or less random operation, like punting, is asking for trouble?

Not wanting to argue, just curious as to what your thoughts are on the matter?
I personally do prefer as much certainty as I can get, and God knows there is very little of that in racing anyway.

[KennyVictor]

Hi Iomaca,

I think drawdown calculator is probably an overflattering name - it's actually a simulator.
The way it works is thussly:
For every bet of your simulation it creates a random number and lets say your win rate is 20% - if that random number is 0.20001 to 0.99999 you lose, if it's 0.00001 to 0.20000 you win. This gives a pretty realistic representation of your chances of winning any particular race with your preferred system.
It carries this on for all the bets of your simulation and personally I can't think of a better way to emulate the seemingly random chances of your horse winning each race with the claimed strike rate of your system.
When one of these simulated races results in a win for you you get the claimed average winning divvy, your bank after each race is calculated and things like maximum drawdown and longest loosing streak are computed.
When run a number of times it simulates realistically for mine the ups and downs of betting. Sometimes you do better than others and you have no control over whether it's a good run or a bad one.

The only improvement I can see it having is a further random element to vary the dividend it pays out each time you win. This would average out at the claimed average divvy but may be higher or lower with each win.

We'd all like a bit of certainty but this little "toy" mirrors the uncertainty of punting nicely I reckon.

DISCLAIMER. Calculation particulars are in the spirit of the program but may not represent the actual finer points of the mechanics of said program, any losses incurred as a result of using the program are not to be laid at the door of the person writing this disclaimer as he did not program the program.

[Duritz]

Nice disclaimer!

[Bhagwan]

Hi Duritz,
You mentioned the commodity prices may fall.
The only way they will fall is 4 main things over the next 2 years is.
1)The new emerging country , China suddenly stops expanding (unlikley)
2) America lowers their consumption for stuff for things to run (unlikley)
e.g. they use 40% of the world oil resources just to run around in circles.
Their society revolves around consumables.
3)That there is an explosion of new mining companies cropping up on the seen all up & running , all at the same time, selling stuff at a lower price (wont happen over next few years because it takes a long time to get just one of those things operational let alone profitable.)
4)The large companies stop buying up their competitors (Large companies have been doing this over the last year or so e.g. the largest gold producer now controls 40% of the world market. BHP have done similar things.
So if the few large companies control most of the production ,that could also mean they contol supply & if one controls supply , one controls the price to be paid.

Big companies now mainly invest in new projects with cash saved after dividends paid & not so much with borrowed money . This means more secure returns for investors & less risk for the company.

So ...
I beleive we will see a new surge in commodity prices over the next 12 mounths .
Copper ,odly enough, is the benchmark other commodities follow as their guide . This is tracked on the London stock exchange very closely , it has just broken through the resistance curve for a new record high after massive profit taking in the beginning of the year, which is recognised as an indicator for other commodities to rise. Known as a Bullish market.

My tip..
Buy into a manged fund called Colonial First State -Global Resources Fund.
Min investment $1000
Assert rating 4 stars (2nd highest rating for security)
Risk is spread over more than 60+ world wide Blue Chip mining companies.
One can have some or all their Superannuation placed into it , just by asking your fund manager , including the one at work , to do so.

Last year it went up 60% & indicators show it may get close to that again.
Because of the big players have more control over market prices from their opposition & are in a stronger position to guarantee the needy supply.
e.g. No point a smaller company having lower prices if one cant guarantee supply.
(Seek professional advice before doing so )

Cheers.

[crash]

Hi Duritz,
You mentioned the commodity prices may fall.
The only way they will fall is 4 main things over the next 2 years is.
1)The new emerging country , China suddenly stops expanding (unlikley)
2) America lowers their consumption for stuff for things to run (unlikley)
e.g. they use 40% of the world oil resources just to run around in circles.
Their society revolves around consumables.
3)That there is an explosion of new mining companies cropping up on the seen all up & running , all at the same time, selling stuff at a lower price (wont happen over next few years because it takes a long time to get just one of those things operational let alone profitable.)
4)The large companies stop buying up their competitors (Large companies have been doing this over the last year or so e.g. the largest gold producer now controls 40% of the world market. BHP have done similar things.
So if the few large companies control most of the production ,that could also mean they contol supply & if one controls supply , one controls the price to be paid. [Snip] Cheers.

Bagman,

Well you have a few holes there I think. No 3 is what is happening right now. Major competition is coming on tap now. The infrastructure they needed is what has given us this big head start. We will not maintain the prices we have been getting for commodities.

There's one rogue element you have left out. This bird Flu that is racing across the world. If it goes human to human [not if but when], the world economy will stop overnight. There will be more chaos in the west than the east. The west is almost totally reliant on distribution of everything from our main city ports
and produce markets.

Delivery and distribution of everything will grind to a halt. We do not have 'Surge' capacity to deal with a major crisis. That was clearly demonstrated by the aftermath of 'Katrina'. Think biological crisis. Any volunteers to distribute food?

Think of a 'Katrina' in every western city and town happening all at once !!
Think Paynesville/Bainsdale, we have enough food here to last a week and then what? Think thousands of towns just like ours. Think no electricity [very quickly] and then no water supply. Think PANIC everywhere and no food.

We are a pared down society of 'just in time' economic driven supply. There will be nothing coming into our ports and no one to distribute it if there where. We will be in a starvation situation in the west almost immediately, not the east [everything they need is local].
Forget hospitals they are already full and will be in chaos within 24 hrs. Kill rate might hit 50% worldwide. Economy? What economy? :-)

Below is a white washed simple version of what to do [you know, 'children, we get under our desks when the atomic bomb falls' veriety]. still worthwhile. The link to the 'heavy' stuff I'll leave out.

http://www.survivetheflu.com/food.html

[KennyVictor]

So, Mad Gambler, have you settled on a percentage of your bank now? I think we've covered pretty much everything that can possibly affect your decision. :)

[Duritz]

But what will happen to racing, Crash? What will happen to racing?????

Remember - if they still race, we can still buy hot chips and hot dogs.

[crash]

Well, I don't know about horse racing but Zoe and I can watch you lot run around like headless chickens and have bets on who will drop dead first, while we cook up a storm [on our abundantly stored gas supply for the barbie] for 3 mths., from our abundant food supply we have been so sensible in organizing beforehand. Toilet paper will be the first thing your supermarket runs out of [if it's open and there is anyone game enough to serve you].

Shotgun cartridges, yep stocked up on those too so don't try to 'visit' :-)

If nothing happens [ho ho], we can always donate the supplies to charity or just eat them.

Good luck boyo's.

[lomaca]

while we cook up a storm [on our abundantly stored gas supply for the barbie] for 3 mths., from our abundant food supply we have been so sensible in organizing beforehand.

Crash!
Not being half as pessimistic about birdflue as the site you provided suggest,
but I though it was only sensible to be prepared for emergencies.
Doesn't even take anything as drastic as a cyclone to disrupt power.
And without power and water for a couple days, 99% of the people in cities would be in real strife.
Cheers

[partypooper]

Duritz, well at least we can get our own back, WE CAN EAT THE HORSES,

actually had some horse meat in the Philippines recently not that bad actually, but I drew the line at the Dog, and the gollied eggs.

Crash, surprised that site didn't explain how easy it is to distil dirty water with 2 containers (or even 2 plastic bags) and a piece of tube just with the heat of the Sun.

[KennyVictor]

2 plastic bags and a tube A?
I tried purify water that had dead cows floating in it many years ago on the side of the fitzroy river in WA when trapped by a flood. I failed miserably. How do you do it PP?

[lomaca]

2 plastic bags and a tube A?
I tried purify water that had dead cows floating in it many years ago on the side of the fitzroy river in WA when trapped by a flood. I failed miserably. How do you do it PP?
KV!
one plactic bag with dirty water in the sun, tube above water, plactic bag sealed around it.
second bag in shade tube inserted, presto!

[Duritz]

And how does it work, then? What's the process that makes it happen?


(Crash - and we thought we were off the topic BEFORE!)

[crash]

Water in the house pipes even though they are cut off. Water in the hot water tank if you know how to access that lot. Keep filling the bath until the water is gone [suddenly]. 1 drop of bleach per litre and you can store it for a hell of a long time [in bleach cleaned containers]. Forget food when it hits the head-lines. It will be too late to get any.

The supermarket in Caratha was empty days ago and the hurricane hasn't even hit yet. Imagine a crisis involving a highly contagious killer flu [?] Emergency workers with Tamiflu tablets saving aust.[?] They won't work and nor will anyone [work].

We really should do what NZ has done and advise people to stock up NOW. However the economy there has stopped and is now officially in recession. Perhaps we [our Government] don't want to worry anyone here into stopping their spending like there is no tomorrow. Our economy needs us. 'She'll be right"! :-)

[lomaca]

And how does it work, then? What's the process that makes it happen?


(Crash - and we thought we were off the topic BEFORE!)
Duritz!!!!!
I know you are being sarcastic. If not ???

[Stix]

you blokes have lost it........ seriously lost it...... keep it going its brilliant !

[KennyVictor]

Don't know about tinned food and the rest but I've got two cupboards full of adult disposable nappies. You don't think the sewerage system's going to work do you?

[crash]

This one covers your stock option and portfollio in case the 'biggy' hits:-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flu_pandemic#Interpandemic_period

[kenchar]

Shotgun cartridges, yep stocked up on those too so don't try to 'visit' :-)

If nothing happens [ho ho], we can always donate the supplies to charity or just eat them.

Good luck boyo's.
Crash,
If you eat the cartridges, please don't stand in front of me if you drop one.

That would be just my luck Crash and I beat the bird flu, wer'e camping out I'm having a snooze, and Crash is bending over the billy making a cup of brew after eating some of the baked beans he has stored away.

Bye Bye Kenchar.:rolleyes:

[crash]

Kenchar,
I'll blow my head out of my a...

Won't come soon enough the Handbrake says:-)

[partypooper]

Crash, what I want to know is if you ever do that naked run through the main street of Melbourne, would it be considered to be a "winning STREAK"?

[crash]

With my body image Party? I don't think so :-(


On a more serious note. Does anyone read: http://www.counterpunch.org/ ? A top site for writers and journalist to air their views on current affairs outside of their newspaper policies. On there I found the below disturbing article on the Bird flu. Very well thought out and written. Bit of a freak-out. Quite a bit of a freak-out actualy. I'ts what got me going here on the subject.

"WILL IT CROSS OVER"?
The CP interview: Dr. Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy talks about the flu bug that could bring the world to its knees.

http://citypages.com/databank/27/1320/article14219.asp

[Duritz]

So, MadGambler, I hope that answers your initial question then!

[crash]

My question is that I''m going to do a dry run on paper using 2 banks of $500 of which one will be a reserve bank and bet 3% of the bank.
Any thoughts on this? Mad Gambler

Meanwhile, I have been giving some thought to Mad gambler's question. And now he has his food bank, the other 2 banks are ready to swing into action !

There has been talk here of reducing, non reducing and 1 or 2%. I think Mad's idea of 3% flat stakes probably reflects preferred bet size for a $500 bank to bet from: $15 bets.

Originally he had bets in 130 races for 48 winners for 218 selections in 3 months. That works out at about 18 bets a week or $270 a week in bets of $15

Quote:
out: $218.00
in; $263.30
I'm sure Mad means units here and not $ unless he is having $0.50c bets. [I'm not knocking the 50c punter but they don't need a betting bank, just a spare change piggy bank].

The fact that Mad is in a position to put aside a $500 bank as a spare means his life is not hanging on his betting bank, so for him to have a realistic betting experience, 1% of bank would be 'safe' but at $5 a bet, too low a bet amount for him I think.

I'd plumb for 2% $10 bets non-reducing [keeps the betting simple] as it is a reasonable bet amount and as Mad obviously by his SR figures, bets around the shorties, there is nothing too risky going on regarding runs of outs, nor with his betting habits. Having a $500 spare bank is a good move for 2% bets.

3% of bank is pushing the envelope unless bank renewal is no big deal or hardship.

So there you go, food bank and betting bank sorted :-)

[Duritz]

Mad I've been giving it thought too. Over the last 24 hours I've had a great deal of thinking time, as I toiled in the back yard digging my "bird flu shelter", completely quarantined from the outside world, and as I set up my patented state of the art "Duritz's Water Purifier and System Staking Plan" which runs in tubes in concentric circles around my Quarantine Shelter, and I've come up with this for you, Mad:

You've got two banks, $500 each. I think there's some truth in what Crash says, that you've picked 3% because you don't want to have too tiny a bet on the horse, $15 keeps you interested, $5 does not (which is 1%).

However, I still think at some point you'll slaughter yourself with 3%, even with a high strike rate of 35% odd. So here's what I suggest:

Take your two $500 banks, and merge them, marry them if you will. Hell, we can have a ceremony in my Quarantine Pit, the marriage of Mad's banks, Crash can be the priest.

So, marry them, and you have one bank, $1000. I know you therefore won't have a backup, but you won't need it.

Now, because you've got a high strike rate, you can start out a little bit more aggressively than the 1% I advocate, so start at 1.5%, increasing/reducing. Co-incidentally, this equals $15. So, you start out at $15, and also make this your minimum level. If you go below $1000, keep it at $15 because you want to have a little bit of action. It's all very well having an increasing/reducing method but no-one can get on for 20c bets.

So, make it a 1.5% increasing/reducing stake, with a minimum of $15. Now, here's the safety bit, ASSUMING (and that's a big assumption, nothing personal, just that 99.99% of systems fail) that your bank grows, build a safety somewhere for yourself. IE, set a figure at which begin to drop the % you have on from 1.5% to 1.0%. It's safer, and it's all very well punting aggressively but you can't punt aggressively if you don't have a $ to punt with.

Do that, Mad, if your system works, that'll work, and keep us posted with how you're going.

Oh yeah, and if the bird flu comes, stay away from my Quarantine Pit come Water Purifier and System Staker method, patented, dammit!

[crash]

Duritz,

Yes I can marry anything. I'm a JP [just past it] :-)

Your idea though [no, the quarantine pit is a good one if you don't have a shoty and plenty of shells], is a bit more answer than asked but a viable alternative never the less. Mad wants 2 banks [2 quarantine pits are better than 1].

'Reducing' for a system you say will probably lose is just prolonging the death. Long before the 'married' bank gets down to 50c bets from reducing, Mad will top-up his bank so why bother with the slow death? I'm talking punting. The flu death will be so quick he'll be able to have some final big $100 bets :-)

[Duritz]

LOL - yeah but I'm saying set a minimum of whatever your initial bet is. In theory, you have your starting bank and you want it to escalate, so you don't want to be betting lower than you were at the start. He has a bank of a gorilla, he bets 1.5% increasing/reducing but with a CELLAR of $15, and perhaps he doesn't increase his bet size until his bank gets above $1500, and only then at the 1% rate, as an inbuilt safety method. (Much like the inbuilt safety method I have outside my Quarantine Pit, I call it my pack of starving, angry Pitbull terriers).

[crash]

Doesn't a 2% of bank bet get bigger if he is winning [and his figures suggest he is]?
Anyone who has chained starving pit bulls around his 'pit' isn't thinking straight. How do YOU get out without a shotty to blast them first?. Being a country boy, I love my shottty [obviously].

[Duritz]

Yeah the 2% gets bigger but it's too big for when the inevitable losing streak comes. You have big peaks when you're winning and big drops when you're losing. It's Bipolar betting.

As to the pitbulls, I don't need to come out, I just get out the shotty that I stole from a house in Bairnsdale recently and shoot one, drag it in, make dim sims, then when there's none of them left to eat, I'm safe to come out.

[marcus25]

Yeah the 2% gets bigger but it's too big for when the inevitable losing streak comes. You have big peaks when you're winning and big drops when you're losing. It's Bipolar betting.

Spot on Duritz!
But was it not exactly what Crash was saying about progression betting, when losing with level stakes?
I firmly beleive that if level betting is profitable, it can benefit, to some extent from progression betting, but in my opinion a simple increase in bet size is far more profitable, and less risky!
The problem I see with a reducing bet size, that we never really know when the next winner is coming along, and maybe missing out on a big winner.
A ten percent strike rate can be made up of a 100 winners in a row and a 1000 losers in a row, highly unlikely I admit but something like that can happen in real life too.
PS. Sorry I left out an important proviso: the size of bet is stricktly a percentage of the bank, whatever % you chose!!!
Therefore it can go up or down.
Good luck

[crash]

[QUOTE=Duritz]Yeah the 2% gets bigger but it's too big for when the inevitable losing streak comes. You have big peaks when you're winning and big drops when you're losing. It's Bipolar betting.
QUOTE]

That's a furpy and you should know better [marcus too]. Sure when you have a loss it's for a greater amount when your 2% of bank has been dragged up by profit.

With a loss bet you are just losing a small % of your winnings that was once the bookies. That 2% bet size reduces every time you give the bookie some of his money back. Your always better off. What you are actually doing is having small progressive bets after a win only [with a % of the bookies money you received as winnings], never after a loss as it's reducing automatically in that situation after every bet.

[KennyVictor]

That's it!!! I'm finished with Mad Gambler. We've poured our hearts and souls into this thread. 9 pages of pure gold giving him at least 3 answers to choose from plus medical advice, share investment advice and bomb shelter tips. Do we get a thank you? Do we heck. I don't think he's a real person at all. He's just a stooge - a thread starter put here by management to get us posting. Look at the first post "Any thoughts on this". And now there's a new thread which finished "Do you agree". A thread starter. Hah, you can fool some of the people some of the time but not some of the people most of the time or some of the rest of them at other times.

[marcus25]

Hah, you can fool some of the people some of the time but not some of the people most of the time or some of the rest of them at other times.
Beautifully paraphrased Kenny. Good old Abe is green with envy!
Cheers

[Duritz]

LOL. Classic.

Crash what you wrote there is true given that you don't hit a losing period that drops you below your bank, because if it does, then you're 2% starts to send you down more quickly. I know it begins to become 2% of lesser amounts but it still drops more quickly.

It's bipolar betting because when you're winning your bank goes up more quickly, but as soon as losers are struck you give back the winnings more quickly. That's what I mean by it being bipolar betting. You ride huge highs during times of profit, and give it all back astoundingly quickly when you're losing.

To prove the point, I've done up a little file, herein attached. It simulates a 10,000 bet series on a system with a win s/r of 25% and a win dividend of $4.20. It then has three pretty coloured sections showing how a 1% increasing/reducing would go, a 2% increasing reducing and a 3%. In sheet2 of the workbook, the progress of your betting bank (started at $1000) is shown. You'll see in the graphs exactly what I mean by bipolar punting in these graphs.

Enjoy, I'm off to my bird flu quarantine shelter now, down there in quarantine with Jardine's Lookout who is here in preparation for the Melbourne Cup (won't he ever quit!).

--- OK, unfortunately the file was too big, so I've brought it down to 6500 sample and here it is.

[crash]

LOL. Classic.

To prove the point, I've done up a little file, herein attached. It simulates a 10,000 bet series on a system with a win s/r of 25% and a win dividend of $4.20. It then has three pretty coloured sections showing how a 1% increasing/reducing would go, a 2% increasing reducing and a 3%. In sheet2 of the workbook, the progress of your betting bank (started at $1000) is shown. You'll see in the graphs exactly what I mean by bipolar punting in these graphs.

--- OK, unfortunately the file was too big, so I've brought it down to 6500 sample and here it is.

Oh mate, your killing me here with all this science. Bipolar betting? I'm only autistic, but Zoe is bipolar [yep]. She's a bipolar punter:-) I'll get her to look at this file and let her try and 'figure it'. She has the Science Degree, I'm just a humble punter !! Until then, we'll agree to disagree. Besides I agree with Kenny, we have been stooged in this thread !!

[lomaca]

That's it!!! I'm finished with Mad Gambler. We've poured our hearts and souls into this thread. 9 pages of pure gold giving him at least 3 answers to choose from plus medical advice, share investment advice and bomb shelter tips. Do we get a thank you?
Don't hold your breath KV!
Wasn't he the one, who so couteously, and gently requested help with Excel?

[partypooper]

Water in the house pipes even though they are cut off. Water in the hot water tank if you know how to access that lot. Keep filling the bath until the water is gone [suddenly]. 1 drop of bleach per litre and you can store it for a hell of a long time [in bleach cleaned containers]. Forget food when it hits the head-lines. It will be too late to get any.

The supermarket in Caratha was empty days ago and the hurricane hasn't even hit yet. Imagine a crisis involving a highly contagious killer flu [?] Emergency workers with Tamiflu tablets saving aust.[?] They won't work and nor will anyone [work].

We really should do what NZ has done and advise people to stock up NOW. However the economy there has stopped and is now officially in recession. Perhaps we [our Government] don't want to worry anyone here into stopping their spending like there is no tomorrow. Our economy needs us. 'She'll be right"! :-)

Just came across that, strange! but he didn't forsee the toilet paper frenzy!

[chook]

runs = log(n) / log(p)
n is number of races
p is either your winning or losing probability
runs is what you expect on a good day

[Try Try Again]

Hi Partypooper,

That is eerie. Crash was ahead of his time!

TTA

[Bhagwan]

Try this approach. It can work well compared to standard level staking.

RULES
1/ Bet 1% of bank

2/ Bet 1% of new balance of bank (up or down) after every 6th bet

Theory of idea.
Most punters can hit 1 or 2 winners every 6 bets.
Maybe none in those 6 bets.

The idea is to capitalise on a good run & minimise the damage to bank, on a bad run.

This approach gives the punter much more betting confidence because it has a "What If" plan built to it.

Cheers.

[demodocus]

The problem, as I see it, is that we're no longer up against our friendly local bookie who was happy to adjust the odds for his 'friends' and 'slip' them on a newbie.
Now we're up against the corporates who have adopted the Woolworths/Coles/Aldi approach ..... now it's all about "turnover" with a "service charge". On Favourites (for example) you can expect this 'charge' to be 12%. They aren't betting you, they're charging you for their service.

Take a fairly standard race, 1200 - 1600, Fav. @ $2.50, WSR = 34.99% (sample 5,711 races) ....... but you need $2.85 just to break even (over time).

The corp. doesn't care which horse wins. To beat the 'odds' you have to do better than the considered opinion of all hands and the cook from those who use AI to those who use a pin to make their predictions .... and do it consistently. All the staking systems can do is slow the rate of your losses.
Have a nice day :-)

[partypooper]

Bhags, that is a very interesting concept.

DEM, I agree but what throws a spanner in the works is the deals: i.e. bet returns , boosted odds etc. there is a $ for the astute!

[Bhagwan]

This works a treat when the right winners come along because punting has hot & cold runs.

1/200th Staking Plan
Bet 0.5% of your current bank. (1/200th)
After every 5th bet, adjust your bet to 0.5% of your current remaining bank.

That means the bet stays the same for 5 bets.
Then Bet 1/200th (0.5%) of remaining
balance , up or down.