Staking to a profit

[wesmip1]

All,

I ran a very quick test on the betfair prices from bat over a month.

Using the retirement plan and only betting on favs every race produced a profit.

also

Using the retirement plan and only laying fav on every race produced a profit.

Betting on Fav:
Start of Month : $1000
End of Month : $2473.42

Laying Fav:
Start of Month : $1000
End of Month : $2691.93

My question is why ?

I have my own thoughts ... but interested to see if anyone else has any insights or research in this area ?

Good Luck.

[Top Rank]

I am not surprised it works, I am surprised that I am the first response to your post, because I am sure it won't be long before the nay sayers armed with quotes from other people will tell it would'nt continue, it can't work.

Did you take any note of what the return would be just for level staking on the Favs.

Good Punting

[savage]

Hi wes

I have followed Fav. for sometime .

I read an article saying that The retirement plan is suited to fav. as there is not a long run of losses.

In my opinion finding true fav's is the key.

[partypooper]

wesmip1, what amazes me is that the stats have hardly altered since the 1800's apparently always hovering around 30% wins for the fav (true or not) what is even more amazing that the same S/R applies across the board (more or less) for all classes of races, all distances, regardless of the no of runners etc etc, we're talking across the board there.

Of course if you restrict to lower prices the S/R goes up and the LOT decreases but nothing seems to push the +/- to the backers favour, or at least anyone that has managed to do it is not going to tell us.

[wesmip1]

Top Rank,

Yeah the Favs showed a slight loss of around 2.2% before taking out commission.

partypooper,

I have found several staking plans that can completely take a high strike rate system from a negative to the positive providing

1. It has a high strike rate (25%+)
2. The LOT is no greater than approx 7-8%
3. The appropiate banking structure is setup (more than 1 bank in most instances)

The test i ran quickly was over 1200 bets. Not a small sample by any means against many of the systems posted here.

Good Luck

[AngryPixie]

Yeah the Favs showed a slight loss of around 2.2% before taking out commission.


Wes

For the lay or to back? I'm guessing back. At the risk of being called a nay sayer, one side must be showing a negative expectation and is ultimately doomed :(

Don't want to get into a slanging match about it but would be keen to read your explanation :)

[savage]

Please reading posting on my thread.

[crash]

Top Rank,

Yeah the Favs showed a slight loss of around 2.2% before taking out commission.

partypooper,

I have found several staking plans that can completely take a high strike rate system from a negative to the positive providing

1. It has a high strike rate (25%+)
2. The LOT is no greater than approx 7-8%
3. The appropriate banking structure is setup (more than 1 bank in most instances)

The test i ran quickly was over 1200 bets. Not a small sample by any means against many of the systems posted here.

Good Luck

If your saying what it plainly looks like your saying: Taking a LOT of 7-8% and turning it into a profit by adopting a certain staking plan[s], you are claiming the well proved mathematically impossible, even with a 100 'banks'. If your claiming it's not, lets see the maths, not the usual [endless over the years here] rhetoric please.

Anyone who really thinks this thread's basic premise is possible, well grab your life savings and top-hat, as a limo from your nearest Casino [or Bookie] will be waiting for you outside your door!

This old chestnut [selling Snake-oil] has been done to death in this forum over the years but we obviously still have here the equivalent [regarding staking's 'magic' maths. thinkers], of the climate change deniers who believe we can have never-ending industrial growth in a closed biosphere without destroying it, just by being 'clever' about how we do it :-))

[wesmip1]

slight loss of around 2.2% before taking out commission.
Angry pixie,

That was for level stakes backing.

But both laying and staking are in profit using the retirement staking plan.

Good Luck

[wesmip1]

crash,

I am not saying you won't lose a bank or two but you find that before that you usually make the bank 3-4 times over. Mathematically if you don't have the extra banks then you are certainly going to lose long term.

This only works on a HIGH STIKE RATE system.

The idea is you need to retire a bank everytime it doubles which happens regularly. If you continue with the same bank it will eventually fail and you will lose.

To prove it works I will run the rest of this year (when I get time) and see if it makes an overall profit. My guess is it will.

Good Luck.

[michaelg]

Wesmip1, a loss of 2.2% before commission on betting on the fave is quite remarkable but not too surprising with Betfair.

As to using the prices on BAT - I think I may have posted the following earlier but it might be worthwhile repeating. When BAT was introduced I compared the Final Trade price with that shown on BAT. I looked specifically at a fave which incidentally I layed at around $3. The Final Trade price was slightly over $3 yet BAT showed it's price at $2.20 which is a huge discrepancy.

I queried this with Betfair who informed me that BAT mirrors the Bet price on the betting screen immediately AFTER the start of a race. In my instance, the $3 was snapped up at the death which left $2.20 as the best available Bet price. BAT identified this price of $2.20 and automatically transferred it to its screen.

So, in some instances BAT is underpricing itself, and therefore with real betting the fave might even show an overall profit. Also, the Lay price would most likely be very flattering as I presume in the above instance the Lay price would be the next "click" of $2.22?

Just thought I'd mention it.

Michael.

[crash]

crash,

I am not saying you won't lose a bank or two but you find that before that you usually make the bank 3-4 times over. Mathematically if you don't have the extra banks then you are certainly going to lose long term.

This only works on a HIGH STIKE RATE system.

The idea is you need to retire a bank every time it doubles which happens regularly. If you continue with the same bank it will eventually fail and you will lose.

To prove it works I will run the rest of this year (when I get time) and see if it makes an overall profit. My guess is it will.

Good Luck.

Like I've already said, these claims are high on rhetoric and low on maths. In this case ZERO maths. Don't worry about running it all year, just supply the maths on how this 'magic' maths equation happens please.

It's a bit like the snake-oil loan merchants claiming the best way to get out of debt is to 'consolidate' the debt by borrowing more money [from us]!

Eventually of course you lose the house :-))

[AngryPixie]

Wes

I've never used the "Retirement Plan" and have only had a very brief look at the example available on line so I'm struggling with how you can back and lay the same horse at the same price and end in profit on both sides of the ledger. That's what your suggesting isn't it? An example would be really great if you get a chance.

My reading of the method is that it's just a progression staking plan isn't it? The examples on the Granstand site are very misleading as they set-up the example with a 3/1 average SP yet display results with a 4/1, a 5/1 and a 7/1 winner!! Change all these to 3/1 and your still in the red. :( Depending on where you move these three winners in the sequence, you may even be further behind than if you'd used level stakes.

Can you tell I'm no fan of progression staking? ;)

[crash]

It's also called chasing losses.

[michaelg]

Just like AngryPixie I'm not really a fan of progressive betting, but keeping an open mind on the subject, Wesmip1 could easily make me reconsider.

It did very well for Maria, but I wonder how she would have fared if she had stuck to level stake betting?

There is a guy on another forum who swears that his staking system has turned a loss of level stakes on Place betting into an acceptable profit, and has been doing it successfully for quite a few years.

[AngryPixie]

It did very well for Maria, but I wonder how she would have fared if she had stuck to level stake betting?


Michael

Wasn't Maria using a percentage of bank approach? In my mind that's a different and probably more sensible method.

[michaelg]

Very true. Even though it wasn't a loss-chasing method it was still a staking method that increased her outlay per race.

I've heard/read arguments from punters who bet (not lay) this way and have claimed it to be superior to level stakes when betting their selections, yet there are critics who don't believe them.

I have some literature by a punter who about ten years ago tried a loss-chasing method with faves only, over a period of one year. He had only two filters - 1) omit races with equal-faves, and 2) omit races in which the fave is odds-on. He applied this to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane Saturday races and documented every selection and every amount wagered per horse. His aim was to cover existing losses and win $5 if the fave won, then he would start from scratch - aiming to profit by the nominated $5. After 52 weeks he showed a very handsome profit. Maybe he was lucky there was not a long losing streak - he admitted he used the 3 states to more-or-less nullify this happening, even though his logic might puzzle some of us.

Anyway, Wesmip1 I'm sure we'll all be interested to see how your Retirement staking plan goes using the Betfair faves.

[crash]

Maria's percentage of bank betting IS a flat stake betting method [a flat stake % of bank].

'Progressive betting' is a different animal, one that increases the bet stake after a loss with various degrees of increase etc. which range from very mild to very aggressive.
It's still a loss chasing system and all promoters of them [regardless what the progressive method involves] NEVER call them a 'loss chasing'. Why? Because chasing loses is a well known big punting no no. However, that's exactly what all Progressive staking methods are .... loss chasing systems.

[Merriguy]

With you, Crash ....in this case anyway lol :) .

[michaelg]

Crash, my understanding of the term "level stakes" or "flat stake betting" is betting the same amount from day 1 to whenever.

But as I'm certainly not an ************ on this, I will defer to your explanation.

As a matter of interest, do you (or anyone here) believe betting a percentage of one's bank is/can be superior to betting the same amount every race even if the latter method shows a loss? I know of astute punters who have completely opposing opinions on this.

P.S - the deleted part is the word "e x p e r t"

[partypooper]

Got to admit that all the "Target" betting plans I've come across would eventually go bust on that horror run IF you stuck it out to the bitter end.

But I think wesmip1 is introducing safety features in the sense that if a MAXIMUM bank is lost then start again with another bank, reluctantly accepting the loss, with the hope that even accounting for the lost bank(s) you still end up in front, ..... I KNOW that is possible over many thousands of bets over 3 years+ (cos I've done it) and yes I do think that is possible long term.

[michaelg]

Partypooper, you've been successful with your method which is reassuring to know. But assuming that you backed every selection for $1 without deviation, would it be showing a loss or profit?

[crash]

Ok. Try this [many do and believe me they think this magic maths. works too]: Get a credit card and then get a 2nd. credit card to cover the interest payments on the first [eventually] maxed out credit card.Then get a 3rd. credit card to pay the interest payments on the first two [and so on]!

Not a lot different to what is being proposed in this thread as a method of punting.

[AngryPixie]

Multiple banks???? :confused:

If your staking correctly to begin with why on earth would you want multiple banks?

[burrah]

Crash, my understanding of the term "level stakes" or "flat stake betting" is betting the same amount from day 1 to whenever.

But as I'm certainly not an ************ on this, I will defer to your explanation.

As a matter of interest, do you (or anyone here) believe betting a percentage of one's bank is/can be superior to betting the same amount every race even if the latter method shows a loss? I know of astute punters who have completely opposing opinions on this.

Michaelg, there is a lovely piece of software available for free to play around with. It has about 12 (i think) betting and 4 or 5 lay staking plans built in.
Just Google "The Staking Machine"
Of course they want you to buy it eventually.

[wesmip1]

Got to admit that all the "Target" betting plans I've come across would eventually go bust on that horror run IF you stuck it out to the bitter end.


I fully agree with this. Thats why we use multiple banks.

crash,

I use to agree with the maths but I have tested it and the results differ to the maths. I dont care if the maths say I will go broke because I might not go broke for 1000 years. The multiple banks add the safety.

Basically I could work out the maths that prove it but I am not going to bother. it basically goes you assume the bank will rise x% of the time. Eventually we go bust no doubt and this will bge y% of the time. If the profit on x% of the time is greater than the lost y% of the time then you have successfully turned a losing system into a profitable one.

For examply I can double my bank 70% of the time using the retirement plan. I will lose my entire bank 30% of the time before I get a chance to double it. Therefore assuming my bank is $1000. 7 out of 10 times I will double it making $7000 in profit (a return of $14,000 with a restart at $1000 every time it doubles). Then 3 out of 10 times I lose the bank of $1000. So:

Starting stake $10,000
Banks at $1000
Profit of $7000
Loss of $3000

Total : $14,000

Profit of $4000 or 40%.

I am happy for you to prove those maths wrong. ( I wrote this quickly so please check it as it may really be wrong).

have Fun.

[partypooper]

Ok. Try this [many do and believe me they think this magic maths. works too]: Get a credit card and then get a 2nd. credit card to cover the interest payments on the first [eventually] maxed out credit card.Then get a 3rd. credit card to pay the interest payments on the first two [and so on]!

Not a lot different to what is being proposed in this thread as a method of punting.

Hey Crash not as daft as it sounds depending on your age, I read about some American guy who wrote a software programme based on this principle, in the end he knew he would have more than 100 cards owing an absolute fortune especially to Amex (no limit) but that it would take I think it was 20 years for the bubble to burst, in the mean time he lived well, he wasn't too worried as he was already in his 60's hee hee!

[AngryPixie]

Ok so effectively your treating the life of a bank as a single bet. I get you. Interesting approach. I'll nut it over. :)

[partypooper]

michaelg, my main betting is place only at level stakes at the present time I am showing just under 10% POT. I also run an aggressive % of (seperate) bank on the same selections which has served me well, (even though I know I will lose several banks over the course of the year) don't know what the pot is there.

But as far as the other thing is concerned I was talking about another plan that I use for win betting, an interesting question though I will burn the midnight oil and answer your query later, just from memory though I think there is a small level stakes profit.

[crash]

crash,

I use to agree with the maths but I have tested it and the results differ to the maths.

Maths are maths [yet you: 'don't want to bother with the maths'] and 2+2=4 whether you like it or not. Loss chasing system just DO NOT WORK !!!

If you want to believe in magic puddings and fairies at the bottom of your garden, go for it . Life is just too short to argue with you and your ilk.

[crash]

Hey Crash not as daft as it sounds depending on your age, I read about some American guy who wrote a software programme based on this principle, in the end he knew he would have more than 100 cards owing an absolute fortune especially to Amex (no limit) but that it would take I think it was 20 years for the bubble to burst, in the mean time he lived well, he wasn't too worried as he was already in his 60's hee hee!


Well I'm around that age and I'd love to know how the system works[?] I get offers of credit cards on almost a weekly basis [currently her-in-doors and self have a $6,500 card each].

I believe if I go belly up on a pension [I'm a pensioner], the banks can't claim court costs and if I pay something [$1 a week I think is all thats needed] the banks can't even take me to court! lol, lol:-))

[crash]

Oh I love this thread. Just like the good old days [fire in their bellies]!

[Mark]

Sounds like the same theory of backing both red and black in roulette.
You'll be up and down, but will eventually do your you know whats.

[partypooper]

Yeah, I was always bamboozled by the experts telling me that I have to get value which by definition means that I need better odds than the true odds (overs) whilst at the same time we are led to believe that winners and shorteners (unders) are one and the same i.e. "smart money" huh?

[partypooper]

Crash I've forgotten the details about that software, but basically the idea was to use a card up to it's limit..... paying the payments from cash advances from another card etc etc but the $ limits he was talking about were way more than you are quoting, just as a matter of interest I have a business Amex with NO- LIMIT (I've never put em to the test, but there is no limit) and a platinum Mastercard with $80,000 limit, I didn't even ask for it, every few months they just send me a notice to say that my credit limit can be increased if I want it, scary.

[michaelg]

Thanks, Burrah.

I'll have a look at it.

[AngryPixie]

Rattled a few cages there Wes ;)

I have to say I'm sceptical but if you have indeed found a method of getting even money 70% of the time then more power to you. I still don't understand how you can back and lay the same horse at the same price and make a profit as you stated in your opening post.

Good luck you've injected a bit of life today :)

[wesmip1]

Maths are maths [yet you: 'don't want to bother with the maths'] and 2+2=4 whether you like it or not. Loss chasing system just DO NOT WORK !!!
Crash,

I gave you the maths a few posts back (Post #26)

But to clear things up using proper maths here you go :

Rick Of ruin stats the probability of a run of outs occuring in a given set of runs.
I have chosen 10,000 runs with a win strike rate of 30%. Roughly the win strike rate of favs.

At the retirement plans staking I am using on a $1000 bank you would need a run of 13 consecutive losers to blow your bank.

In a sample of 10,000 races this will happen at least 95 times.

This accounts for 13 * 95 = 1235 of the races. This is 12% of the time. Lets say its double that due to runs of outs that are only brken by 1 win in there somewhere so thats still only 24%.

This leaves you with a 76% success rate for increasing your money in any given series of bets.

Go back to my last post and you will see that if I make a profit 76 times out of 100 and they are at least going to cover the 24% of the time I make a loss then I am going to make a long term profit.

This is obviously a simplified version. Show me the maths where you can prove this is wrong and then give me the result set that proves it is wrong and that it doesn't work as I can provide many result sets where it does work.

I am happy to be proven wrong but at the moment I am the only person showing any maths to prove my point.

Good Luck.

[crash]

Sorry, but that's 'magic' maths.

You mentioned strike rate but not average win price. Why not?
Because that [well known ] win strike rate for favorites equals an average win price that is just not profitable and every punter with half a brain already knows that [what happened to your progressive staking 'maths'?].

There is NO maths in your post to support your original claims whatsoever, just magic puddings :-))

[wesmip1]

Crash

With a success rate of 75% i need an avg win price of $1.33

But as i said it is double the bank ( so works out to be $2.00 ).

Does the magic maths work now ?

have fun.

[wesmip1]

crash,

Its simple maths really.

1. If you have a strike rate of x% you are going to need to earn at least 100/x to break even.

I have shown using the staking plan that you can increase a 33% strike rate to have a 75% success rate for producing a profit. Providing the win is more than $1.33 (for 75%) then I am going to be in profit. Do you agree or disagree ?

As Angry Pixie put it .. Think of 1 bank as 1 bet. Therefore I have a 75% success rate at picking winners. I make double the bank each time for that 75%. Which means I make an average winner of $2.00 which straight away makes a return of $1.50 for every $1 bet.

That is maths proving my point.

I am yet to see the counter maths....

[crash]

Like I said earlier, life is too short to debate the possibility of turning a negative expectation sum game [LOT] into positive expectation [POT] by a 'clever' loss chasing staking plan.

Continue to convince yourself and maybe some of the [mathematically challenged] crowd who visit here, but 'smoke and mirrors' arguments leave me cold when it comes to risking cold hard cash.

There always has been and always will be, a queue to buy Snake-oil. Sell away! :-))

[crash]

Lets put this silly baby to bed:

Mathematical Proof that Progressions cannot overcome Expectation.
by Richard Reid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In "The Casino Gambler's Guide," Allan Wilson provided a mathematical proof of the fallacy that a progression can overcome a negative expectation in a game with even payoffs. This article expands on Wilson's Proof and provides the proof that progression systems cannot overcome a negative expectation even if the game provides uneven payoffs.
Let bk = the size of the kth bet.
Mk = the size of the payoff on the kth bet.
pk = the probability that the series terminates with a win on the kth bet, having been preceeded by k-1 losses in a row.
n-1 = the greatest number of losses in a row that a player can handle, given the size of the player's bankroll. In other words, the nth bet must be won, otherwise the player's entire bankroll will be lost.

Let's now define Bn = bn * Mn

The expected value for any series is:

Eseries = p1B1 + p2(B2-b1) + p3(B3-b2-b1) + . . . + pn(Bn-bn-1-bn-2- . . . -b2-b1) + (1-p1-p2- . . . -pn) * (-bn-bn-1-bn-2- . . . -b2-b1)

If we let

Eseries = A + B where,

A = p1B1 + p2(B2-b1) + p3(B3-b2-b1) + . . . + pn(Bn-bn-1-bn-2- . . . -b2-b1)

and

B = (1-p1-p2- . . . -pn) * (-bn-bn-1-bn-2- . . . -b2-b1)

then it is easier to see that "A" represents the probability that the series will end with a win multiplied by the bet size at the nth term in the series and "B" is the probability that the series ends in a loss multiplied by the net loss.

Now let's rearrange the terms in "A."

A = p1B1 + p2B2 - p2b1 + p3B3 - p3b2 - p3b1 + . . . + pnBn - pnbn-1 - pnbn-2 - . . . - pnb2 - pnb1
A = p1B1 + p2B2 + . . . + pnBn + b1(- p2 - p3 - . . . - pn) + b2(- p3 - . . . - pn) + bn-2(- pn-1 - pn) + bn-1(- pn)

And for "B" we get

B = -bn(1 - p1 - p2 - . . . - pn) - bn-1(1 - p1 - p2 - . . . - pn) - . . . - b2(1 - p1 - p2 - . . . - pn) - b1(1 - p1 - p2 - . . . - pn)

Now if we combine A and B again, we get,

Eseries = A + B
Eseries = p1B1 + p2B2 + . . . + pnBn - b1(1 - p1) - b2(1 - p1 - p2) - . . . - bn-1(1 - p1 - p2 - . . . - pn-1) - bn(1 - p1 - p2 - . . . - pn)
Eseries = p1B1 + p2B2 + . . . + pnBn + p1b1 + (p2 + p1)b2 + (p3 + p2 + p1)b3 + . . . + (pn + pn-1 + . . . + p2 + p1)bn - (b1 + b2 + . . . + bn)

Wilson points out that to get rid of the subscripts, all we have to do is realize that pk = (1-p)k-1p, where p is the probability of a win on an individual play and 1-p is the probability of a loss. If we think about it, it makes sense that the probability of a series terminating in a win at the kth level is the product of the probability of k-1 losses in a row multiplied by the probability of win on the kth trial.

So how do we use this information? Well, let's try substituting this expression for each pk and see what we get.

Eseries = (1-p)1-1pB1 + (1-p)2-1pB2 + . . . + (1-p)n-1pBn + (1-p)1-1pb1 + ((1-p)2-1p + (1-p)1-1p)b2 + ((1-p)3-1p + (1-p)2-1p + (1-p)1-1p)b3 + . . . + ((1-p)n-1p + (1-p)n-1-1p + . . . + (1-p)2-1p + (1-p)1-1p)bn - (b1 + b2 + . . . + bn)

Simplifying, we get

Eseries = (p(1-p)0B1 + (1-p)1pB2 + . . . + (1-p)n-1pBn + p(1-p)0b1 + ((1-p)1p + (1-p)0p)b2 + ((1-p)2p + (1-p)1p + (1-p)0p)b3 + . . . + ((1-p)n-1p + (1-p)n-2p + . . . + (1-p)1p + (1-p)0p)bn - (b1 + b2 + . . . + bn)

If we factor p out of the first parts of the equation and look closely, we can see that the kth term T can be written as:

T = p[(1-p)k-1]Bk + p[(1-p)k-1 + (1-p)k-2 + . . . + (1-p)2 + (1-p)1 + (1-p)0]bk

or rephrased for Bk = bk * Mk we get

T = p[(1-p)k-1Mk + (1-p)k-1 + (1-p)k-2 + . . . + (1-p)2 + (1-p)1 + (1-p)0]bk

If we substitute

C = (1-p)k-1 + (1-p)k-2 + . . . + (1-p)2 + (1-p)1 + (1-p)0

and if we multiply C by (1-p) and call this D

D = (1-p)C = (1-p)k + (1-p)k-1 + . . . + (1-p)3 + (1-p)2 + (1-p)1

Now, if we subtract C from D, we get

D - C = (1-p)C - C = (1-p)k - (1-p)0
[(1-p) - 1]C = (1-p)k - (1-p)0
C = [(1-p)k - 1]/[(1-p) - 1] or
C = [(1-p)k - 1]/-p]


Now if we substitute C back into T, we get

T = p[(1-p)k-1Mk + [(1-p)k - 1]/-p]bk
T = p(1-p)k-1Mk + 1 - (1-p)k]bk
T = p(1-p)k-1Mk + 1 - (1-p)(1-p)k-1]bk
T = [[pMk - (1-p)](1-p)k-1 + 1]bk This now allows us to write the equations in terms of summations. We therefore get

Eseries = sum ****[[pMk - (1-p)](1-p)k-1]bk**** + sum {bk**** - sum {bk****, for k = 1 to n

The last two terms cancel, so we are left with:

Eseries = sum ****[pMk - (1-p)](1-p)k-1]bk****, for k = 1 to n
Eseries = sum ****[(1+Mk)p - 1](1-p)k-1]]bk****, for k = 1 to n

If we now look closely at this equation, we can make several observations. First, the sign of Eseries depends solely on the resulting sign of [(1+Mk)p - 1]. To make things a little easier to follow, let's say we're dealing with a game that has even payoffs. This means that Mk = 1 and therefore
Eseries = sum ****[2p - 1](1-p)k-1]]bk****, for k = 1 to n
Eseries = [2p - 1]sum ****(1-p)k-1]]bk****, for k = 1 to n

Now it is a little easier to see what is going on. For example, if we are in an unfair game, then p < 0.5 and we can easily see that 2p-1 will be a negative value. For example, if our chance of winning is only 49%, then p = 0.49 and 2p-1 = -0.02. In an even game, p = 0.5 and we see that 2*0.5-1 = 0. In this case, the equation is telling us that in an even game the expected value is zero just as we would expect it should. If we are playing a game with an advantage, then p > 0.5 and 2p-1 will be positive.

The general formula for uneven payoffs work just as well, but is more complicated to understand. Suffice to say that if [(1+Mk)p - 1] is negative, then regardless of the progression, the game will eventually result in a loss for the player.

Hopefully, this post will provide definitive proof of the fallacy of trying to overcome a negative expectation by using any type of progression whether it be the martingale or some other modern progression.
--------------------------------------------------

And from a long ago previous post of mine on the subject:

To expand on progressions a bit further, it might be worth thinking about the punter who is exploring the use of, or is trying a progression for the first time. Mostly it is those who are loosing punters, as a winning punter netting profit flat stakes win/place or whatever, is as happy as a pig in mud with what they are already doing.

The loosing punter exploring progressions is searching for a way to turn loss into profit, which is a bit like trying to spend more than you earn without getting into debt [how our society and it's economy works]. In other words the punter interested in progressions is mostly chasing losses though they will rarely admit it [even to themselves].

The only progression that will never get you into trouble is the winning progression. Increasing the bet amount by a progression line after a win and not a loss. Long term of course you will be no better off than sticking to flat stakes betting, but it will give you the 'impression' of being better off. That might be worth something.

[wesmip1]

crash,

Thank you for posting that and I agree that the maths of using 1 bank doesn't work thats why I use multiple banks.

I am going to run the results for as long as it takes to either proves this works or doesn't work.

Todays selections where Res of 1 means a win and Res of 0 means a loss.

Odds Res Level Stakes Running Profit
1000 1000
2.1 0 990 990
2.38 0 980 978
1.85 0 970 964
1.56 0 960 948
1.65 0 950 929
1.76 1 957.6 945.72
2.66 0 947.6 926.72
1.48 1 952.4 937.28
3 1 972.4 977.28
3.7 0 962.4 963.28
1.82 0 952.4 947.28
2.96 0 942.4 928.28
2.56 0 932.4 906.28
1.96 0 922.4 880.28
3.25 0 912.4 850.28
2.46 0 902.4 820.28
2.88 0 892.4 790.28
2.9 1 911.4 847.28
1.98 0 901.4 812.28
3.4 0 891.4 771.28
2.52 1 906.6 844.24
3.45 0 896.6 808.24
2.96 0 886.6 766.24
1.79 1 894.5 804.95
5.7 1 941.5 1007.05
4 0 931.5 997.05
3.7 0 921.5 985.05
1.6 0 911.5 971.05
2.1 0 901.5 955.05
3.4 0 891.5 936.05
3.85 1 920 998.75
2.18 1 931.8 1011.73
2.74 0 921.8 1001.73
3 0 911.8 989.73
2.7 0 901.8 975.73
4.8 0 891.8 959.73
3.55 0 881.8 940.73
3.75 1 909.3 1001.23


Laying the same selections:

Fav Price Res Return Level Stakes Running Profit
1000 1000
2.1 1 0 1009.5 1009.5
2.38 1 0 1019 1019
1.85 1 0 1028.5 1028.5
1.56 1 0 1038 1038
1.65 1 0 1047.5 1047.5
1.76 0 1 1039.9 1039.9
2.66 1 0 1049.4 1051.3
1.48 0 1 1044.6 1046.02
3 0 1 1024.6 1024.02
3.7 1 0 1034.1 1038.27
1.82 1 0 1043.6 1050.62
2.96 1 0 1053.1 1061.07
2.56 1 0 1062.6 1071.52
1.96 1 0 1072.1 1081.97
3.25 1 0 1081.6 1092.42
2.46 1 0 1091.1 1102.87
2.88 1 0 1100.6 1113.32
2.9 0 1 1081.6 1092.42
1.98 1 0 1091.1 1106.67
3.4 1 0 1100.6 1118.07
2.52 0 1 1085.4 1101.35
3.45 1 0 1094.9 1114.65
2.96 1 0 1104.4 1126.05
1.79 0 1 1096.5 1117.36
5.7 0 1 1049.5 1056.26
4 1 0 1059 1078.11
3.7 1 0 1068.5 1096.16
1.6 1 0 1078 1111.36
2.1 1 0 1087.5 1124.66
3.4 1 0 1097 1135.11
3.85 0 1 1068.5 1103.76
2.18 0 1 1056.7 1083.7
2.74 1 0 1066.2 1102.7
3 1 0 1075.7 1118.85
2.7 1 0 1085.2 1132.15
4.8 1 0 1094.7 1143.55
3.55 1 0 1104.2 1154
3.75 0 1 1076.7 1121

Using Level Stakes
Backing All Favs : SHOWING A LOSS
Laying All Favs : IN PROFIT

Using Progressive Stakes:
Backing All Favs : IN PROFIT
Laying All Favs : IN PROFIT

For this test I will assume I have 10 banks that can be busted before I have lost everything (starting fund of 10K).

Good Luck.

[Top Rank]

One question to crash. Is it your maths or something you read in a book?
Do your own research, then you can present a valid argument, not someone else's.

[partypooper]

isn't this exciting hee hee, thanks for starting this one wesmip1, I think I can smell burning flesh here (fingertips) that's the problem!

[crash]

One question to crash. Is it your maths or something you read in a book?
Do your own research, then you can present a valid argument, not someone else's.

For very good reasons I don't do my own major electrical work when it's needed in our house. I call on a qualified professional.
I don't have to stick a knife into a switched on toaster to prove electricity can kill [obviously some people do] and would argue strongly with anyone suggesting otherwise. If necessary I'll call on professional opinion [that's valid isn't it?] and in 99% of cases most people would take an Electrician's word on the subject !

Likewise, I don't need to be a mathematician to disagree with the original[IMHO] silly maths. proposition that was presented in this thread, but quite validly and if necessary, present professional opinion on the matter. If that's unfair or unacceptable then this discussion is clearly over.

If Reid's maths. are wrong, then there will be other Mathematicians out there who would have said so and presented their maths arguments to prove it. Sorry, I can't find even one that disagrees but plenty who agree.

[crash]

isn't this exciting hee hee, thanks for starting this one wesmip1, I think I can smell burning flesh here (fingertips) that's the problem!

I like what that Major said on the beach in Apocalypse Now: " I love the smell of Napalm in the morning! "

Lol. lol :-))

[Bhagwan]

Get stuck into them Top rank , I too, smell burning finger tips & I like it.

I beleive in staking plans .
It is very difficult to make sustained profits from level stakes betting , although it is the safest.

The maths chaps are right when it comes to roulett because the prices are fixed, with a max ceiling, but in racing the prices vary race to race where value should be targeted. e.g. bet 2 horses to beat the odds-on pop.
This is the bit that is not factored in by the Maths chaps.
That's why the the debate will continue, because the prices vary in racing.

With most progressions , its a good if your selection method picks a hand full of $4+ shots. Under this amount & things can get tough trying to recover from a bad run.

One of the safest progressional methods is the...
"Ladder staking plan" over 72 bets.
It is desinged to show a profit even with a -30% POT & a 16% SR.
Which, according to the level stakes believers & maths experts , cant be done.
Keep in mind , it needs a strike rate of 16%+
Restart once there is any profit.

For those interested , do a search of this site using the "Search" button above.

Cheers.

[crash]

Bagman's Stairway [to heaven] staking plan.

We all know your a born-again staking desperate Bagman!

By the way, the maths wasn't 'Roulette', it was about the futility of trying to turn a loss into a profit by using [any] progressive staking methods. You well know all Casino's, TAB's and Bookies would all go broke if it was possible [think about it].

Your just being mischievous here [as usual].

[baco60]

Crash,
After 3524 posts one would think that you are experience enough poster to accept
good contributors opinion, but NO you just like to knock people specially Bhagwan
You would have to be an idiot to go into any gambling without good staking plan.
Let me tell you this Bhagwan has plenty of ideas more then you ever will, and I bet my, you no what, that his bank account would be superior too yours any time if one campers your posts and his regarding knowledge in racing.
I honestly think that you never ever put the bet on the horse, all you do is sit on the front of computer and wait as a vulture for someone to post so you can start your
silly comments. Haven’t you got anything better to do? You have problem mate.
This forum is about passing ideas to one and other,not knocking as you always do.
It must be the Gippsland weather that gets you in bad mood most of the time of the year.Come to sunny Qld,and get your life back to normal.
You will have more friends.

[AngryPixie]

But isn't it great that we can all get so passionate about it. That's a healthy sign.

[crash]

Crash,
After 3524 posts one would think that you are experience enough poster to accept
good contributors opinion, but NO you just like to knock people specially Bhagwan
You would have to be an idiot to go into any gambling without good staking plan.
Let me tell you this Bhagwan has plenty of ideas more then you ever will, and I bet my, you no what, that his bank account would be superior too yours any time if one campers your posts and his regarding knowledge in racing.
I honestly think that you never ever put the bet on the horse, all you do is sit on the front of computer and wait as a vulture for someone to post so you can start your
silly comments. Haven’t you got anything better to do? You have problem mate.
This forum is about passing ideas to one and other,not knocking as you always do.
It must be the Gippsland weather that gets you in bad mood most of the time of the year.Come to sunny Qld,and get your life back to normal.
You will have more friends.

You finished your [embarrassing] god worship of Bagman and the personal insults to me or would you like another large post to get it off your chest?
Perhaps if you ask him nicely the Bagman might blow you a few kisses to make you feel better.

For starters, I'm not knocking the Bagman [Bagman is another name for a bookie. A friendly nickname, not a put down] at all and he [at least] knows it and by 'staking plan' you mean what? Progressive staking as presented in this thread?
If so, well along with the Mathematician's I and no doubt most other punters prefer to stay 'idiots' [your words].

Your very personal attack say a lot more about you than me as a contributor to this forum.

As for 'come to sunny QLD'. well I grew up there. Perhaps that was my big problem?

[Crackone]

My two cents

I believe both, a betting staking plane can work if you have a regular strike rate and ave. price.

And yes if you don't get your regulars and have a run of outs you will loose. (this is why we have a stike rate and ave. price so we don't loose)

All because something is Mathematical doesn't mean it is going to happen. It may happen today, tomorrow or in 100 yaers.

Chears

[odericko]

its clear to me that a good cab shazing would fix everything......

[Crackone]

its clear to me that a good cab shazing would fix everything......
?????

[crash]

its clear to me that a good cab shazing would fix everything......

Good idea. I might do just that [I don't think they have made it to QLD yet though] :-)

[Bhagwan]

Thanks for you kind words Baco.

I told you I could smell burning finger tips.

This happens every time that word "Staking" is brought up.

Why did some one have to bring up that word ?
"Slooowly I turned....inch by inch...& then I throttled the life from them till they lived no more !"
(Abbot & Costello)

People get cranky.
Me think that mazing.

Cheers.

[Chrome Prince]

My personal opinion - staking plans work over limited time, they have a "use by" date, you just don't know when that date is.

If you're prepared for the extra risk to make extra profit, then away ya go.
It isn't for me.

If you can get a positive POT over a decent number of bets, there is no need for a staking plan, nor extra risk.

A good staking plan is great at hiding the end result, but when that end result pops up (the average dividend and strike rate), it will magnify ether the loss or profit.

I've never found a staking plan that could outperform level stakes over many thousands of real time bets except for staking to overlay.

[wesmip1]

All,

I am going to run the results for as long as it takes to either proves this works or doesn't work.

Todays selections where Res of 1 means a win and Res of 0 means a loss.

Rather than taking a double bank method which i tested against I think this is good enough to work on a day by day basis and that makes it easier for me to post so based on that I will do the following:

For progressive:
If in profit at end of day : Take profit and start a new bank
If showing loss at end of day : Continue using same bank for tommorrow or till bank busts.

For level stakes : Start new bank every day as it doesn't matter.

Todays results Backing:

Odds Res Level Stakes Running Profit
1000 1000
4.8 0 990 990
2.22 0 980 978
4.1 0 970 964
2.44 0 960 948
2.66 0 950 929
2.58 1 965.8 963.76
1.7 1 972.8 974.96
2.7 0 962.8 960.96
2.56 1 978.4 987.48
3.15 1 999.9 1013.28
4.4 0 989.9 1003.28
4.2 0 979.9 991.28
2.6 0 969.9 977.28
2.96 1 989.5 1008.64
2.64 0 979.5 997.64
3.5 0 969.5 984.64
2.68 0 959.5 969.64
3.8 0 949.5 952.64
3.55 1 975 1003.64
3.3 1 998 1031.24
3.55 1 1023.5 1056.74
2.36 0 1013.5 1045.74
4.6 0 1003.5 1033.74
1.45 1 1008 1040.04
3.3 1 1031 1069.94
3.3 1 1054 1095.24
2.94 0 1044 1084.24
3.05 1 1064.5 1110.89
4.9 1 1103.5 1153.79
3.7 0 1093.5 1141.79
3.45 0 1083.5 1127.79
4 0 1073.5 1111.79
4.8 0 1063.5 1092.79
2.96 0 1053.5 1070.79
3.4 0 1043.5 1045.79
1.58 0 1033.5 1020.79
4.8 0 1023.5 995.79
3 0 1013.5 970.79
2.26 1 1026.1 1002.29
6 1 1076.1 1187.29

Todays results laying:
Fav Price Res Return Level Stakes Running Profit
1000 1000
4.8 1 0 1009.5 1009.5
2.22 1 0 1019 1019
4.1 1 0 1028.5 1028.5
2.44 1 0 1038 1038
2.66 1 0 1047.5 1047.5
2.58 0 1 1031.7 1031.7
1.7 0 1 1024.7 1022.6
2.7 1 0 1034.2 1036.85
2.56 0 1 1018.6 1018.13
3.15 0 1 997.1 985.88
4.4 1 0 1006.6 1005.83
4.2 1 0 1016.1 1021.98
2.6 1 0 1025.6 1036.23
2.96 0 1 1006 1012.71
2.64 1 0 1015.5 1027.91
3.5 1 0 1025 1041.21
2.68 1 0 1034.5 1052.61
3.8 1 0 1044 1063.06
3.55 0 1 1018.5 1035.01
3.3 0 1 995.5 1000.51
3.55 0 1 970 946.96
2.36 1 0 979.5 975.46
4.6 1 0 989 999.21
1.45 0 1 984.5 989.76
3.3 0 1 961.5 936.86
3.3 0 1 938.5 863.26
2.94 1 0 948 905.06
3.05 0 1 927.5 829.21
4.9 0 1 888.5 634.21
3.7 1 0 898 712.11
3.45 1 0 907.5 777.66
4 1 0 917 832.76
4.8 1 0 926.5 879.31
2.96 1 0 936 918.26
3.4 1 0 945.5 951.51
1.58 1 0 955 979.06
4.8 1 0 964.5 1002.81
3 1 0 974 1022.76
2.26 0 1 961.4 1001.34
6 0 1 911.4 896.34

Day 1 Backing Progressive : $1.23 Profit
Day 1 Laying Progressive : $121 Profit
Day 1 Backing Level Stakes : $-90.70 LOSS
Day 1 Laying Level Stakes : $76.70 Profit

Day 2 Backing Progressive : $187.29 PROFIT
Day 2 Laying Progressive : $ -103.60 LOSS
Day 2 Backing Level Stakes : $76.10 PROFIT
Day 2 Laying Level Stakes : $-88.60 LOSS

Overall :
Backing Progressive : $188.52 PROFIT
Laying Progressive : $ 17.40 PROFIT
Backing Level Stakes : $-14.60 LOSS
Laying Level Stakes : $-11.90 LOSS

WOW look a losing level stakes system is in profit ... OH MY ...

The reason backing and laying are both in the negative for level stakes is because the 5% commision has already been taken into account on all winning bets.

Oh and max bet is 10% of starting bank (or $100).

Good Luck.

[wesmip1]

staking plans work over limited time, they have a "use by" date, you just don't know when that date is.
Totally agree. Eventually you hit that run that knocks out your entire bank.

So to remedy this we use multiple banks. We expect the use by date to hit us a few times but I also expect that the profit from the other days will take care of these unfortuante events.

Good Luck

[Crackone]

Hi wesmip1
are those figures from the advantage tool or reel figures?

[michaelg]

Well done, Wesmip1.

A point of interest - you are assuming a 5% Betfair take-out. But with real betting, the take-out would very soon have to be less than the maximum of 5%.

Not being familiar with the Retirement Staking Plan I don't know how this would affect the amount to be bet per race, but overall it would have to increase the profit on turnover, maybe even with a snowball effect especially if Betfair's take-out continually reduces due to increased turnover? Could it even prolong the life of the initial bank if/when the inevitable(?) losing sequence occurs?

[wesmip1]

crackone,

yes it is the BAT prices. They are reasonable for testing purposes.

Good luck.

[Chrome Prince]

The BAT tool is the last traded price, so it is a fair reflection.

[jfc]

Wesmip,

Consider this simple level-stakes game:

0% = Edge = LOT = POT
1/3 = Strike Rate
5 = Bank
Lose if Bank busts
Win if Bank doubles

With some effort you should be able to map it out on a spreadsheet.

And you should find:

-5 52% Lose
+5 31% Win
+6 17% Win


I believe that no matter what staking ritual or Bank you choose for this game you will never get your win strike rate above 50%.

Hence your claim of a 70+% win strike rate for a negative game is wrong.

But if you still believe that you can improve on 50% then you should be able to demonstrate how.

Obviously this challenge is open to all.

[crash]

One post from someone who mastered in maths. and all the staking plan believers have gone dead quite [?]

[crash]

One post from someone who mastered in maths. and all the staking plan believers have gone dead quite [?]

quite?

I think I mean quiet!

[wesmip1]

crash,

Its a bit hard to reply when I am asleep.

Jfc,

Not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate. Using your figures I don't think I could ever be in profit because the losing run to knock out a bank of that size is too frequent.

There is a point at which the strike rate will negate a losing system depending on the loss % and the strike rate %. Mind you the strike rate needs to be very high (I think its more than 67%).

I found by using the progressive staking plan you will increase your bank at least 70% of the time(when using a timeframe of a week or double the bank as a stop point). So 7 out of 10 weeks you will make a profit. Providing the profit from the 7 successful weeks covers the complete losses of the other 3 weeks you should come out in front.

I am happy to be proven wrong and rather than argue about it I am running the tests here. No one has yet to show me a large enough sample from punting where it would not work. I have ran this over 4000 bets and it is showing a profit but no one can show me another 4000 bets where this is losing significantly.

Theory is great but we all know those who can't do, teach.... I want to see real results to prove these things, and I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

I am not saying this will work with every system. I am saying this will work on betfair for favs because the ROT is almost break even. This would not work on the totes.

Good luck

[jfc]

....

For examply I can double my bank 70% of the time using the retirement plan. I will lose my entire bank 30% of the time before I get a chance to double it. Therefore assuming my bank is $1000. 7 out of 10 times I will double it making $7000 in profit (a return of $14,000 with a restart at $1000 every time it doubles). Then 3 out of 10 times I lose the bank of $1000. So:

Starting stake $10,000
Banks at $1000
Profit of $7000
Loss of $3000

Total : $14,000

Profit of $4000 or 40%.

I am happy for you to prove those maths wrong. ( I wrote this quickly so please check it as it may really be wrong).

have Fun.

Wesmip,

Above you claim that for a non-positive game:

70% Double Bank
30% Bust Bank

which is obviously a profit.

But in your most recent post you dilute that to



I found by using the progressive staking plan you will increase your bank at least 70% of the time(when using a timeframe of a week or double the bank as a stop point). So 7 out of 10 weeks you will make a profit. Providing the profit from the 7 successful weeks covers the complete losses of the other 3 weeks you should come out in front.



i.e.

70% Double Bank or be in front after 7 days.

You cannot infer profitability from that.

In a negative game you would expect that your 3 combined losses would be bigger than your 7 combined wins.

[wesmip1]

70% Double Bank or be in front after 7 days.

You cannot infer profitability from that.

In a negative game you would expect that your 3 combined losses would be bigger than your 7 combined wins.
Sorry my fault for infering that. It all depends on how and where you set the stop for the progressive staking plan.

What I am trying to say is that by using an appropiate stop point in the staking plan (whether it be a % profit or a time frame) that it is possible to turn a negative game into a positive outcome.

Good Luck.

[Racer]

crash,

Theory is great but we all know those who can't do, teach.... I want to see real results to prove these things, and I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

Wes.,

This is what Pittsburgh Phil says,

"Here is a million pound challenge -
If anyone can prove to me that a staking plan can turn a negative system
into a profitable one, then they can have a million *"

That was a couple of years ago - I think he's still waiting - I shall inform him
that you are coming for the bullion.

[wesmip1]

Racer,

It is possible without a doubt to turn a negative return into a positive.

Simple answer is double every bet till you get a profit. In theory it works. The math proves it works. In practivce its just plain stupid but it meets his requirement.

[wesmip1]

I could also prove it this way


Strike rate 99%.
Staking is Double on every loss.
Average winner = 1.01

Level stakes is a 0.01c loss every 100 bets.
Useing staking as above is a $1 profit every 100 bets.

Your longest losing run will be only be 3 which wouldn't break the bank.

[wesmip1]

Results today:

Day 3 Backing Progressive : $177.29 PROFIT
Day 3 Laying Progressive : $ -307.86 LOSS (CARRIED FORWARD FORM DAY 2)
Day 3 Backing Level Stakes : $110.80 PROFIT
Day 3 Laying Level Stakes : $-118.30 LOSS

Overall :
Backing Progressive : $356.81 PROFIT
Laying Progressive : $-290.46 LOSS
Backing Level Stakes : $65.10 PRFOIT
Laying Level Stakes : $-100.50 LOSS

Good Luck.

[crash]

Racer,

It is possible without a doubt to turn a negative return into a positive.

Simple answer is double every bet till you get a profit. In theory it works. The math proves it works. In practice its just plain stupid but it meets his requirement.

It's more than that, it's a total nonsense answer.

A simple answer sure. But a practical solution? Not in a million years as your theoretical double up stakes would kill the odds or you would never get anyone to accept them if you had the endless bank to put the money up in the first place.
.

I think Pittsburgh Phil meant prove it in practice, not in theory. That's why he still has his million.

Your on a hiding to nothing here. Give it up!

[Racer]

Racer,
Simple answer is double every bet till you get a profit. In practivce its just plain stupid but it meets his requirement.

Everything one needs to know is in your reply Wes. - Keep doubling up and you will be broke long before your bookie.

Note the Asterisk at the end of Phil's offer - As Crash intimates, that is re.
demonstrating the proof.

Save yourself a lot of research time on this one Wes. - the world's great
mathematicians and odds\percentages men, who advised all the Casinos
how to set up to win\never to lose in the run, they have covered it all,
in spades, so to speak.

[stugots]

the reason for wanting to turn a negative into a positive?

one would be looking for shortcuts & less homework, methinks

twas that easy mugs everywhere would be raking it in

surely starting with a positive leans an endeavour toward success?

[crash]

The simplicity of this stupidity is this: If it was possible to turn a negative expectation into a positive expectation by a staking method, all Casino's and Bookies in the world would have been skinned alive many years ago.

Sell the house and turn yourself into cash if you believe in it's possible. The Casino's and Bookies will compete with each other to get a Limo to your door.

[Top Rank]

Bhagwan,
See you in first class on my next trip. LOL.

[crash]

Bhagwan,
See you in first class on my next trip. LOL.

Kiss, Kiss Bagman!

[wesmip1]

I think people read what they want as I plainly said (in regard to doubling your stake) that:

"In practivce its just plain stupid "

I was asked for a way to prove it would work and I did. I did say in practice it wouldn't work but that wasn't the question posted.

Anyway from I have seen posted I have the following:

1. You can't do it cause someone said so; or
2. There are maths out there somewhere that say it won't work

So far no one has taken the favs from betfair for the last month ( or even few days) and proven this method will not work.

I am not saying it will work. I am saying it worked for a month on past data and I am trying it out day by day to see if it continues.

I think a lot of people here have a complex about staking plans.... if so,there is no need to continue going on in the thread .. just move on.

[crash]

I think a lot of people here have a complex about staking plans.... if so,there is no need to continue going on in the thread .. just move on.

I have a 'complex ' about 2+2=4, but I've learned to live with it because 2+2=5 just doesn't hold the universe together.

[Chrome Prince]

It needs to be divided into three criteria.

1) Can a staking plan turn a loss into a profit temporarily?
A) Yes, of course.

2) Can a staking plan turn a loss into a profit in the longrun?
A) No, the maths will get you in the end.

3) Can you temporarily turn enough profits on enough banks, to defeat the overall loss or bust?
A) No, if you could everyone would do it.

I think the two main debators here are debating different criteria - hence the confusion - frustration.

[Top Rank]

What is a longrun? Is 16yrs long enough, or should I have gone bust by now.

[Crackone]

Hi Wesmip1
Tried it today (backing) results below,

Flat stakes
out 61 units
return 63.94 units
ave. price 3.55

retirement plan
out 82.5 units
return 89.99 units

Some longer priced Fav. got up.

Cheers

[Chrome Prince]

What is a longrun? Is 16yrs long enough, or should I have gone bust by now.

Time means nothing, number of bets means everything.

An 80 year old man has been having one bet a year for sixty years, he says I've been doubling up on losses and I've beaten the maths.

His final outlay is $100,000 to recoup the last ten years losses, up until this bet he's winning, this final bet means he loses everything.

What does he say now?

[wesmip1]

Time means nothing, number of bets means everything.

I half agree with this statement. The best (easy) way to test anything is to use the number of bets and the next question is always how many bets is a statistically significant number.

I usually say around 1000-2000 should be enough to get a feel for a system BUT also a minimum of 3-6 months is a good timeframe. For example there are some systems that work during spring carnival time but fall over the rest of the year.

To tell the truth it is one thing I have lacked on checking this progressive staking plan. While it has had over 1200 bets it has only been over the timeframe of a month. I thought rather than test it on prior random months I would just check it against the next couple of months.

As I have said all along I am trying to see if using a progressive staking plan will work with the favs on betfair (both backing and laying). There may be some reason it works that has nothing to do with the staking. It may work because the prices are so close to breakeven that as they sway in and out of profit from each side(back and lay) it provides the edge the progressive staking plan needs to make a profit. The only way I am going to prove or disprove any theory is to run a semi-live test period which I am trying to do but there seems to be a lot of people hell bent on condemning ideas before they even have some test results.

Good Luck.

[partypooper]

Crash, I'm very tentitivly adding my 2c worth, you are probably right when you say the mathes will get you in the end, but there is no telling when, it could be in 200 years time couldn't it?? that's what wes is saying really.

I've got 8 banks working at the moment on win bets betting week to week NOT race to race (spreading the risk) I've lost several banks along the way, but am still a long way ahead, in fact I am so far ahead that I can confidently say that if things turned against me to that extent, I would give up long before I was into my money so I have already proved what wes said if you follow the drift. In the sense that over the 8 banks it shows a loss on level stakes (just) in fact 4 banks were possitive and 4 banks were negative.(AT LEVELS)

Nearly all systems WORK, (sometimes, some most of the time) but probably NONE all of the time,....... where have I heard something like that before???? hee hee! anyway, the trick is to make hay while the sun shines.

In the meantime SPREAD the risk is the way to go.

PS. Haven't travelled 1st class yet but I'm planning my next trip abroad for the whole of 2008, along with the Wife and two kids, and I swear the whole trip will be paid for as a result of betting on the horses, (well + rent from the house to cover every day expenses)

[crash]

The only thing I have ever disagreed with here is that a progressive staking plan WILL [which means always] turn a loss into a profit. All other claims for them is of course always possible, depending on which way the cards fall. Probability [chance if you like] can end up being very generous, or a real cow of a thing! It's not strictly linear according to odds. That's why we can get long runs of ins and outs. Either might start on your next bet or your 1000th next bet, as we can't see the future.

Any type of bank arrangement combined with any type of progressive staking plan CAN produce a profit [or loss] over a various numbers of bets [time frames are meaningless as has been pointed out] and bet types. But nobody can claim they WILL work over X number of bets, nor use past/present examples as 'proof' of future success.

The shorter the odds, the longer the potential number of bets the arrangement might work over due to the laws of probability. It could be profitable [or disastrous] over 5 bets or a 1000 bets. The lower the risk [shorter the odds], the greater the chances of an extended run of success and vis-a-vis. However, there is no guarantee of success, regardless of low risk and regardless of it being a low or high number of bets.

Some [unlucky] people get killed the first time they travel by car and others travel by car a million times without a scratch. Probability is no guarantee of success for safely riding in a car or a progressive staking plan in a negative expectation game either.

There are very good reasons I never swim in Shark infested waters, or use progressive staking plans anymore either :-))

IMHO any punters time could be far more productively spent, discerning the difference between perceived and real value bets and improving their race handicapping ability [picking winners] than twiddling with the nob's of staking progressions trying to turn loss into profit.

[stugots]

IMHO any punters time could be far more productively spent, discerning the difference between perceived and real value bets and improving their race handicapping ability [picking winners] than twiddling with the nob's of staking progressions trying to turn loss into profit.

amen

[michaelg]

"Different strokes for different folks".

[Racer]

PS. Haven't travelled 1st class yet but I'm planning my next trip abroad for the whole of 2008, along with the Wife and two kids, and I swear the whole trip will be paid for as a result of betting on the horses

I have no wish to turn the above Positive into a Negative, Party - there's no profit in it, but 2008 did you say - I woudn't BANK on it - didn't you mention some of your banks had already gone - in racing\betting all the bookie needs is time.

My mum and dad were bookies for 47 years, from the day I was born I was either driven about by my mum in the family BRG Jaguar, or else Lou, our chauffeur, in a Humber Snipe - Only my mum drove the Jag., simply because my dad could not see his own hands, blind as a bat, but a hell of a brain.

My dad always drummed into us, all a bookie requires is time - Oh and the other thing he advised from when we were very young - to only bet with him and my mum, as many bets as we liked, so long as we could put the cash
down up front.
Yikes we had people delivering and picking up clocks from the big works' places - they were full of timed bets, so that nobody could put a bet on after time.
Mind you it looks like we would have had a Mini car if Top Rank had been on the scene - what was that again, 16 years, - Bwwwwwaaaaaaaahaha !!

[Bhagwan]

Run of Outs Calculator

Heres a handy tool to work out ones worst run of outs on a given day.
The idea is to place the max number of bets one would have on a very busy day then press the button for each day.
e.g. say one has , say 20% SR & the max No. of bets one would ever make on one day is say 50 in the sample box.

Enter that into the relevant boxes & away you go, press the process button for each day, this should give you a worst case scenerio for most given days,
using that volumn of bets for a day.

Of course the less bets one has on a given day the less the run of outs should be .
Dont fall for the argument of 1000 bets in a row because no punter bets that many on any given day.

Each day of racing is different , with its own anomolies, thats why one should do this exercise relating to the max number of bets you feel you would do on a very busy day, not 1000 bets for a day but say 50 bets a day.

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

Check it out , it is very accurate.


Cheers.

[crash]

The moral of the story of course as the calculator will prove, would be to have less but bigger bets!

[partypooper]

Bhagwan, youre right there BUT, if you were betting day to day instead of PER day the run of bets is only goverened by how long you live. e.g. take the 1st race at Perth place your bet, your next bet is the 1st race at Perth TOMORROW etc etc the same for races 2-8, (that's why I have 8 banks working at each meeting in theory) though in practice you will never have to exhaust all banks for all meetings, well, .....if you did you would have given up long b4 then.
When some banks are going through a rough time some of the others are performing better than expected so there's no hurt at the end of the day/week/month

Racer, I am well aware that things can turn bad at any moment, 3 of my win bets yesterday, Black in Time, Collegian, Kaleido, sometimes you swear the Gods are against you.

But as far as 2008 is concerned, it's already allocated mate there's no way it's going back in the satchell

[Chrome Prince]

In racing\betting all the bookie needs is time.


Must have been in the UK Racer?

Yes, the bookie requires time because the odds are in his favour and against the punter regardless of who wins or losses on a particular day. The only criteria being that his liability has a ceiling on it.

Which is why staking plans will not work in a negative expectation, unless there is some edge within.

A bookie could lose of course if he were hit by a number of stings where his odds were greater than the horse's chance even though his book had a margin in it, it just depends on whether he is a gambler or bookmaker ;)
That's why there are limits at casinos and at racetracks to make sure that the rorts and shifty's can't send an otherwise profitable business broke.

Top Rank could well be winning using a staking plan in a negative scenario over 16 years, because his staking plan stakes more on the horses that are positive expectation, he may not (or his method) that this is in fact the case, the way the cards or his method have fallen.

[crash]

A negative expectation outcome remains a negative expectation outcome.

There are no [not enough obviously] positives within a negative expectation game [an oxymoron] for there to be anything positive about them, as end result outcome is what is important and if it's negative it's negative.

It's a bit like saying I had a great day because I had 1 small winner [a positive] out of 10 bets instead zero winners out of 10 bets [I lost less than I could have]!

[Chrome Prince]

Crash,

What I meant was that the odds might be against all favourites for example, but within that he might be staking more on the favourites that beat the odds.

A certain type of favourite might return 10% profit at bookies prices, while the rest lose 30%. Ergo he is betting in a positive expectation game even though the overall expectation is negative.

If there was no positive expectation, only the bookies, then nobody would win - ever, overall....and that's certainly not the case.

The bookies expectation is positive, because he puts up odds on every race, whereas the punter can be selective and turn the expectation in his favour.

All the big bookies can actually name many customers who are long time winners. They just don't let them on anymore, because they know they turned the odds in their favour.
So now these winning punters have commission agents who bet smaller amounts on their behalf, in order to get set.

[wesmip1]

Results today:

Day 4 Backing Progressive : $27.81 PROFIT
Day 4 Laying Progressive : $ 96.24 PROFIT (CARRIED FORWARD FORM DAY 3)
Day 4 Backing Level Stakes : $-94.00 LOSS
Day 4 Laying Level Stakes : $94.40 PROFIT

Overall :
Backing Progressive : $384.62 PROFIT
Laying Progressive : $-194.22 LOSS
Backing Level Stakes : $-31.90 LOSS
Laying Level Stakes : $-6.1 LOSS

Another day where both progressive stakes showed a profit. The Laying system is still down on this bank from the last few days and will continue to be carried forward.

This gets me thinking a bit more on what we should be staking. If the lay and the back is showing a profit on the same selections then do we just need to lay/back the difference to produce a profit.

For example if the backing bank is said to stake $10 per selection and the laying bank says to stake $15 on the selection then we should be laying for $5.

[crash]

Chrome,

A positive expectation outcome is of course possible in a negative expectation game. However, that's not the same as saying there is profit $$$ to be made in concentrating on positives within a personal losing outcome. Which is what it looked like you were saying.

[Chrome Prince]

By staking less on the negatives and more on the positives (in effect only really backing the positives), then you have turned a negative into a positive.

It's all semantics really, you can turn a negative into a positive, but only when the staking is such that the greater bet is on the positive outcome (read odds in your favour).

[partypooper]

personally, if the present trend continues; I can see no further room for change!!

[crash]

Your right Party. The spade in this thread has now [miraculously] become a shovel !!!

PS: Thank God the Sydney Harbour bridge wasn't built with the maths some punters like to use :-))

[AngryPixie]

PS: Thank God the Sydney Harbour bridge wasn't built with the maths some punters like to use :-))

No they built the Westgate.

[Top Rank]

Fair chance in 16yrs I might have had a fair few bets, but good point it pays to cover all angles.

Good Punting and Goodnight

[Bhagwan]

For those not interested in progrssional staking , read no further.

If any one wishes to have a serious go at progrssional staking its a good idea to have an XL sheet set up with 70 columns , so that tinkering with worst possible out comes cam be experimented with.
See if one can make it recover after 50 losses in a row, using the selection plan one wishes to use.

The Ladder type progressions are the safest because one is not reducing the divisors ,this is when bets can get aggressive if its not kept in check.

For those interested in the Retirement plan .
To try & keep it simple, it goes something like this.

Start with a divisor of either 5/1 or 6/1 , we never drop below this at any stage.
We will start with a 5/1 divisor.
$100 Target / 5 = 20 = 1% of bank,
(It is optional if one wishes to make this less, in this case target could be set at $50 = 0.5% using same bank size.)
Bank required $2000

The first bet has to be between 1% or 0.5% of bank.

First bet is $20 if it loses we add this to out $100 target ect.
All other on going bets will have one pt added to the divisor until a winner is struck.
The odds of the winner are now deducted from the previouse divisor after the new target amount has been calculated after that win.

Example of Divisors used.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12w@4/1 8 9 10w@2/1 8 9w3/1 6 7w@2/1 5w 5w ect.
Do this until in any profit is made, then start again.

Remember no one ever went broke taking a profit.

It is strongly recommended to start afresh as soon as any profit is made, otherwise one needs to plogh more resources into the betting sequence to win say the last $50 of the $100 target figure.
It takes a lot less resources to win the first $2-50 than it does to win the last $50 of the $100 target.
So please keep that in mind.

The Retirement plan can be made more aggressive by reducing the divisor by its Decimal price rather than its Fractional odds.
e.g. Winner at $5.00 = 4/1 Reducing divisor by 5pts instead of 4pts.
Using the Decimal figure is the one I would use.

This helps the plan recover a bit quicker , it also increases the size of the bets.
Run it over a worst case scenerio , say 70 bets with 40-50 outs in a row & see what it looks like. Using an XL sheet to reflect the dividors used.

If the bets look too high by bet 70 so as to recover , it will need further tweeking.

The original Retirement plan needs the selections to nearly break even to make it work because it uses fractional odds to reduce the divisor .

Using decimal odds to reduce the divisor the selection plan can show a loss of approx minus 10-15% at level stakes to still show a profit.

Remember to try & start afresh as soon as any profit is made , one will find its POT greater if one does it this way .
Also it helps protect the bank more, if a bad run of outs should crop up.

Never drop divisor below 5/1 , otherwise one will pay the penalty of some aggressive bets in proportion to ones size.

If one starts feeling nervious about the size of the bets , simply add 2 pts to the divisor at any time, this also means that it is going to take longer to recover.
If one does their 70 bet spread sheet , one should not be feeling this way because they should of prepared themselves for what they are in for.


Cheers.

[Crackone]

Hi Bhagwag
This is what I tried on Sunday backing every Fav. (51 bets)
$10 bet Div. 6 Target $60
When in profit start again.
When $60 down start again.
Ended the day $68 up, lost bank 2 times.
Use retirement plan would have won $120.

Wesmip1 it dose work thanks

[michaelg]

Hi, Crackone. Impressive.

Backing every fave for the same amount would have resulted in a profit or loss?

[Crackone]

Hi, Crackone. Impressive.

Backing every fave for the same amount would have resulted in a profit or loss?47 bets on the races (had a couple on the trotts)
$127.46 return (betfair) no commission taken out
14 winners 29.78 strike rate
ave. price $3.60
Longest run of outs 8 and a 7.

edit. Lost back 3 times not 2 times as stated earlier.

[Crackone]

[QUOTE=Crackone]47 bets on the races (had a couple on the trotts)
$127.46 return (betfair) no commission taken out
14 winners 29.78 strike rate
ave. price $3.60
Longest run of outs 8 and a 7.

47 units out
50.4 unit in

[Bhagwan]

Thanks for sharing your findings & well done.
The average price is excellent.
You are doing the right thing as to starting again a soon as any profit is shown.


Using that $10 as a starting point with a 6/1 divisor .
$10 = 1% of bank.
I feel a $1000 bank should do the trick.

One can go a lot of outs before bank becomes half.
If bank does become halved.
One idea is to rule off & start again with the remaining $500.


Dont forget their argument is... eventually it will fall over , well in that case , so will level stakes betting.
So if ones starting bank is $1000, whats it to be level stakes or progressional staking, chasing Favs?

Cheers.

[crash]

Hi Bhagwag
This is what I tried on Sunday backing every Fav. (51 bets)
$10 bet Div. 6 Target $60
When in profit start again.
When $60 down start again.
Ended the day $68 up, lost bank 2 times.
Use retirement plan would have won $120.

Wesmip1 it dose work thanks

The only way you could back 51 SP favorites on Sunday was after the jump! Me thinks a bit of post-race back-fitted 'betting' is going on. With all the other hoodwinking going on here we don't need a 'dose' of that too.

[wesmip1]

crash,

You can automate anything so it is very easy to place 51 bets on a sunday.

Good Luck.

[crash]

Oh really? A program that places a bet on the SP favorite which is often not known [it's called market time lag] until after the jump? What program would that be? Lol Lol :-))

I think it's called the 'back-fitted favorite program' isn't it?

[michaelg]

I think they are referring to the Betfair fave.

Interestingly, at Ballina race 8 today there were equal Betfair faves (nos. 7 and 10) when the race began, even confirmed on BAT. As the race was one of my Lay The Betfair Fave I was able to lay no.10 at the scheduled start-time at the price of $3.85 as it was the clear fave at that time. If the Staking Plan was automated I would presume it would have bet no.10 which was beaten by the other equal-fave.

But then again, - swings and roundabouts.

[Crackone]

The only way you could back 51 SP favorites on Sunday was after the jump! Me thinks a bit of post-race back-fitted 'betting' is going on. With all the other hoodwinking going on here we don't need a 'dose' of that too.Believe what you like Crash, I have no reason to make it up. As Michaelg has said these where betfair Fav. before the jump, believe it or not
Cheers

[crash]

All forum members are free to claim/doubt anything here. So feel free to claim anything you like.

[Chrome Prince]

I don't think anyone mentioned SP faves, did they?

I had 34 faves or dual faves, but they were only the ones covered by IAS and Betfair, so certain meetings were left out.

[partypooper]

I've done extensive research on Pre-post favs v SP favs, for preceisly that reason (you often don't know what is fav til it's too late) however I'm told that there are bookies who will accept wagers on the un-named favourite if that's the way you prefer to go.

My reasearch shows however that there's very little difference if any in the long run backing the pre-post fav instead, usually it's the same horse (some win some lose about 30% in both cases,) sometimes not and it wins sometime it loses .

Boy I managed to make that sound difficult, what I'm saying is that the SP fav wins about 30% of the time, and the pre-post fav. wins about 30% of the time though the selection will differ sometimes. Phew!

But taken overall theres very little in it, so to make life easier if I'm operating a mechanical plan I'll use the pre-post fav so my bets can be placed well before racing if necessary.
A word of warning though ALWAYS use the same source of the pre-post fav as publications differ.

[Chrome Prince]

I arrived at the same result partypooper.

In the longrun, it all evens out.

[crash]

And this is hardly a groundbreaking insight: Backing all favorites SP or otherwise, will lose you money.

If a program is ever invented to be able to lay them all, it's a Rolla in the garage for sure! :-))

[Chrome Prince]

Depends entirely what odds you get.

Try laying every favourite on Betfair.

[wesmip1]

Crash,

You can easily lay all the favs. So I am not sure what your saying - unless you are saying lay them at the SP price which would be difficult.

Regardless if you lay or bet on the favs on betfair you are going to come out at a near break even price ( possibly down a % point or 2 due to commisions) as a lot of studies have shown but you won't be down 10% or 15%. It will be around 1%-2% instead. And hence the possible approach of using a staking system that reclaims this 1%-2% and puts the overall plan in profit. The possible reason it works is because over time the 1%-2% loss actually moves in and out of profit ( 1%-2% up sometimes and and 1% - 2% down sometimes ).

Good Luck

[crash]

Crash,

You can easily lay all the favs. So I am not sure what your saying - unless you are saying lay them at the SP price which would be difficult.


Good Luck

Obviously, exactly what I'm saying [tongue in cheek].

[Crackone]

Hi wesmip1
Are you still doing the BAT thing.

Crash reading back your posts I relise you are talking about SP price , I am backing the IAS Fav at the jump. The IAS fav and betfair are normally the same unless one gets backed in late.
I don't take to much notice of the tabs as they very greatly. eg the last at belmont today Lord Baumay 4.2 IAS opened at 4's on S/tab $5.1 at the jump equal Fav with Gamatron $5.1 on IAS Gamatron 8/1 Gamatron ended up Fav paying $5 on S/tab (you could have got $9 on betfair)

Crash you may want to google the grey horse bot

[crash]

There seems to be quite a few varying ideas about what a race 'favorite' is. It's generally assumed to be the [SP] favorite. Usually the TAB favorite, as that's were the majority of punters [still] bet, for practical reasons.

[AngryPixie]

Wes

At the risk of dragging up the angst again, how is this going?

[wesmip1]

AngryPixie,

I didn't want to keep posting as this just blew up to be something way too big. Since doing this

Backing Progressive : $1533 PROFIT
Laying Progressive : $218 PROFIT

The Backing bank has more than doubled (started with 1K) while the lay side has made a signicant profit (21%).

I have not lost a bank yet although been very close once but then I hit a string of winners. Seems to be the way that you getr a heap of favs up in the morning and then a dull patch with the odd win and then a run of favs win late in the day.

Interestingly both sides are still showing a profit but remember the mathematicians say that one of them has to fall over soon or later ...

Thought I would just add - THIS IS PAPER TRADED RESULTS ONLY. When I say paper traded I have written a program that works it out for me so I don't have to do anything and I just check the figures every so often. I suspect this is just going through a good time at the moment.

Good Luck.

[AngryPixie]

Interestingly both sides are still showing a profit but remember the mathematicians say that one of them has to fall over soon or later ...


Yes I think eventually one side will fall over but it's important to try your ideas out. In science you usually learn more from your mistakes so they are treated as being unfortunate but valuable things.

Please keep us posted now and then. I found some of what you had to say quite interesting.

[wesmip1]

For those interested this will probably be the last time I post these results as I don't want this argument to go on forever (don't want to bring it up again). But the results are below for almost a month of testing:

Backing Progressive : $4800.10 PROFIT
Laying Progressive : $-35.70 LOSS

No Banks lost yet.

Looks like this works....

With 1 day to go this month it has made a stupid amount of money. It is up 380%.

Good Luck.

[jfc]

Wesmip,

If your figures are valid then I advise you to take your loss-chasing (aka "progressive") plan and hurl it as far as possible off Bulli Pass - or equivalent.

Then analyse your figures to try and find a filter to get you profitable on favourites at level stakes.

Your experiment suggests that Betfair Markets have a memory about favourites. Leading to overbacking when favourites are running hot, and/or underbacking when they are in a slump.

So something like only backing favourites following n outs will probably be the optimum strategy.

[Chrome Prince]

Perhaps Betfair has no memory but the punters do - short term memory.

My studies show when a horror run of outs on favourites occurs, the prices get longer and longer and hence the overlays occur.
Just as when they romp home 50% of the day, they get shorter and shorter as success continues.

Why?

Because either favourite backers are cashed up and think this is the day, or they simply get frightened and back off so they have cash for another day.

Might seem all paranoia and conjecture, but looking at the prices (and I'm talking about heavily fancied horses) the pattern does emerge.

Self doubt, the conspiracy theories, the "perhaps I got it wrong today with the ratings" etc etc, all have an impact on how much is wagered.

As a wagering group, punters have the shortest memories of any group, including bookies ;)

Some of my best days have been where only one favourite gets up for the day (and I bet level stakes) and the overlay goes to 200% plus.