Using Maths in Betting

[Mad Gambler]

How would I go about using mathematics in order to come up a profitable staking plan for betting 3 to 4 horses a day.

Are there any web sites that would help me?


mad gambler

[crash]

It's an age old problem and would depend on how good the horses are [% of winners you get up and the odds you take], not how clever the maths are in staking.

[stugots]

google for RETIREMENT STAKING PLAN

[AngryPixie]

Mad Gambler

Crash is 100% right. Clever maths isn't going to help if your selections are no good. If you can't make a profit at level stakes, no staking plan is going to help. Don't let the Alchemists convince you otherwise.

If your interested in a maths angle try:

MiniMax Staking @ twonix.com

It's quite straight forward. I use it for about 10 lay's each Saturday.

You could also Google for info on the Kelly Criterion but beware you really need to know what your doing with it as it's not for the faint hearted.

If you look a bit laterally you can turn some of the stock and option trading methods to your advantage.

I'm not a fan of increasing stakes to chase losses so advise you to steer clear of plans like these if you think your selection method is a little iffy.

Let us know what you turn up.

[crash]

The success for the Kelly Criterion, or even the 1/2 or 1/4 Kelly is based on knowing the REAL odds of a horse winning [impossible], so it's a bit of a smoke and mirrors logic ****** and not suited to horse racing at all so don't be sucked in. Originally it was designed for the stock market I think, but I'm not 100% sure.

Anything by 'twonix' is worthwhile, as If I remember correctly he is a pro. punter [at least very serious] as well as a computer software programmer.

[AngryPixie]

The success for the Kelly Criterion, or even the 1/2 or 1/4 Kelly is based on knowing the REAL odds of a horse winning [impossible], so it's a bit of a smoke and mirrors logic ****** and not suited to horse racing at all so don't be sucked in.

I'm not so sure that it's not suitable for horse racing but you need to be absolutely on top of your pricing, so perhaps it was not a great suggestion. It's not for the beginner. It's a method of discovering the optimum bet size to ensure maximum long term growth, and as such isn't really a staking plan. As you can see it's quite controversial. Look elsewhere - forget I mentioned it.

It's origins were in an academic paper about the telephone system from memory.

[crash]

One thing I do know about the Kelly is that it's a VERY aggressive staking plan. Aggression and punting are a sure way to the poor house:-)

[partypooper]

crash, the trick is to be aggressive with THE BOOKIES money not yours!

[stugots]

Aggression and punting are a sure way to the poor house:-)

exactly why betting methods like the retirement plan & the like can & should be a godsend for many aimless punters, as they teach discipline & patience when used to the letter.

they wont turn a losing strategy into a winner, but can certainly help refine ones selection skills whilst betting live without breaking the bank.

[AngryPixie]

Aggression and punting are a sure way to the poor house

Aggression (uncontrolled) coupled with a poor betting plan - yes. But it's possible to have an aggressive (maximum boldness) strategy and pocket the profits.

[Chrome Prince]

Kelly, half kelly, quarter kelly etc are aggressive because they rely on "knowing" your edge. Therefore when you know your edge (for example a two entity contest) kelly is very efficient in maximising returns and taking advantage of overlays.

The problem is that it is far too radical for horseracing in general. Very few are able to "know" the exact edge, as the sands shift radically from contest to contest. If the punter has thousands of selections and breaks even, then by modifying his returns by getting better prices, he figures that kelly will prove a bonanza.

The consideration is not necessarily given to drawdown, and the result is often a bust.

Kelly is supposed to take this into account via edge, but in the real world the edge is a moving average and the swings can bust a punter very easily.

In my opinion, kelly is high risk, but the returns are greater (if accurate).

It depends on the accuracy of the person placing the bets and the personal inclination to gamble for reward.

Kelly is way too radical for me - slow and steady wins the race.

Punting is not an 800m sprint, it is a 3200m distance race, where careful planning, knowledge, patience and superior skills reap rewards.

[AngryPixie]

In my opinion, kelly is high risk, but the returns are greater (if accurate).

It depends on the accuracy of the person placing the bets and the personal inclination to gamble for reward.


Yes I'm a bit sorry I mentioned it now. It has it's place, I've used it in the past, but please be careful if your new to the punt because you really need to know your stuff, and be prepared to ride some wild up's and down's.

Mad Gambler, I fear we've got a bit off track (my fault). Can you expand on your question a little?

Punting is not an 800m sprint, it is a 3200m distance race, where careful planning, knowledge, patience and superior skills reap rewards.


Indeed, and Kelly is a long term strategy, but let's forget about it now :eek:

[crash]

[QUOTE=Chrome Prince]Kelly, half kelly, quarter kelly etc are aggressive because they rely on "knowing" your edge. Therefore when you know your edge (for example a two entity contest) kelly is very efficient in maximising returns and taking advantage of overlays.

QUOTE]

Knowing our edge and knowing the real odds of a horse winning are one and the same problem and both are impossible to know correctly. In other words our perceived overlays are often actually underlays!