Target Betting

[partypooper]

OK, I know the opinion of Crash and Chrome on this one, but any more ideas on this subject ,"with a twist" i.e.

Yes, we all know that the "bank" will eventually be bust by that horror run, but what about where we accept that, I mean say we aiming to win $20 per selection (obviously on a method that has shown to produce a small profit at level stakes or at least broke even)

Example, we allocate a $500 bank, target is $20 per selection/race, we always bet as if the minimum price is 3-1, so for example if the selection is 2-1 we actually bet as if 3-1, so we need a 3-1+ winner to clear the "Target" if we get a winner at less than 3-1, we win but not the whole amount, so we carry on hopefully to win that amount that is left on the next winner!

So we accept that we will lose the bank occasionally (although not necessarily all of it, eg. say the bank was already up by $300, then we lose a run of $500, so the actual loss is $200, then we start another bank etc )

So in other words, most of the time we will win our $20 per race, but occasionally we will lose $500, the aim is to win MORE than we lose, any feedback?

[wesmip1]

partypooper,

Yes it will work. The problem some people forget is that you remove the major issue with progressive staking plans by doing this.

The biggest plus to a progressive staking plan is that you will have more money on the winners ( cause they come after a losing run ). But the biggest problem with a progressive staking plan is that it moves erradically vastly increasing the risk. For example you could win $20 twenty races in a row and then give it all back in the next 5 races. This is because you have incremented your bet after your loss (or a series of losses).

What you are suggesting will limit this problem but not make it go away but I think you understand this already.

What you effectively are doing is stopping the progression and saying that anything causes the loss of a bank then that is the run of outs that could knock you out.

Here is where it gets interesting and essentially is the key to using a progressive staking plan. What is the run of outs that is going to knock you out and how often will they occur. For this you need to know your strike rate. Then you can easily use the "Risk of Ruin" software to determine the probability of the run of outs occuring. You can then set your progression to take advantage of this.

Hope that helps....

Good Luck.

[Chrome Prince]

Partypooper,

If the method is even 0.5% in profit then a staking plan will work, providing you allocate your bets correctly.

But I understand what you're saying - you want to win $20 to total more than your $300 that you lose from time to time.

Perhaps looking at overlays using any method you choose and staking to those overlays might actually work out better than chasing a flat amount regardless?

[partypooper]

thanks men for the feed back, just a note by e-mail, one of the blokes suggested using 3-1 minimum and maximum of 8-1, so when a selection gets up at greater than 8-1 (it happens) the target is exceeded, and the surplus held in a "reserve" bank to bring into play after a given no. of outs /$loss, seems like a reasonable idea???? any thoughts?

PS were talking about backing as if 3-1 IF less than 3-1. and backing as if 8-1 IF greater than 8-1.

[crash]

Party,

I'm truly amazed. How many loss chasing methods are there [with creative names] that punters can come up with that imply anything but 'Oh, boy, yet another loss chasing method' ???!!!

[partypooper]

Hee hee, welcome Crash, hee hee, well at least I haven't given it a fancy name yet! and as I was only intending to use it with a method that shows a profit in the first place any loss chasing will only be in any given sequence.

[crash]

So in other words, most of the time we will win our $20 per race, but occasionally we will lose $500, the aim is to win MORE than we lose, any feedback?

Hi Party,

How does 'most of the time we will win our $20' become an axiom here? Why do we MOSTLY win our $20?

The only real axiom is: Most of the time we might lose our [target] $20, or we might break-even or we might win it!

The big problem with [loss chasing] target betting is that with each loss and I'm not talking big runs of outs, the target gets bigger of course [$20 profit target + what we have lost so far]. So after each loss, we are progressively chasing greater odds until our set cut-off point and hopefully we do have one, is reached and we start again.

So the 2nd, bet [4/1] has less hope of success than the 1st. bet [3/1] and our 3rd. bet [5/1 or 6/1] has less chance than our 2nd bet etc. etc. Being sensible would be to stay with our 3/1 horses [or whatever our comfortable odds range is] but improve our selection ability[?]

There is no way of knowing that all our bets are [say] 3/1 REAL sp odds and that our progression of higher odds bets are just bigger and bigger overlays with a greater and greater 'edge' in our favour! Trying to achieve that in the real world of punting would be just plain silly, because we can never know the real odds of any horse winning without a Crystal ball. However, it would be the only way that target betting will 'mostly' work [each bet has to have a greater 'edge' in our favour than the last].

Having 5 banks with $200 in each of them is no different to having one Bank with $1000 in it if our target betting method is the same for each bank. Psychologically maybe, but financially? None whatsoever. It's a bit like saying your richer because you have 10x$20 notes in your wallet instead of 4x$50 notes!

[partypooper]

deep breath, well Crash, what I meant was that most times when we start a new sequence say with $500 bank covering to win with an aim to win of $20 per selection we will hit a 3-1 + winner at some point clearing the target before losing all $500.

Occasionally we will hit a horror run and lose the $500 (or maybe less, if you just happened to be if front b4 losing the $500) so you could say that we will have to successfully clear the target at least 25 times (i.e. $20 x 25) b4 losing the a bank , on average, to break even, needless to say we want to do much better than break even.

The method of selection that I'm talking about is mechanical, 27+ % winners ave. divi 3-1, so much of what you say there doesn't apply in this case.

[wesmip1]

Having 5 banks with $200 in each of them is no different to having one Bank with $1000 in it if our target betting method is the same for each bank.
This statement is completely wrong .... I think you miss the whole concept.

There is a huge difference between using 5 banks and 1 bank when it comes to progressive staking and the major difference is that you can (not will) win consistently with 5 banks but you will almost certainly lose with 1 bank.

You are trying to simplify everything when it just isn't that simple.

You could adjust your staking plan to try and replicate using 5 banks by restarting the progression after a series of losses but it still isn't the same outcome as there are too many variables including your targets, divisors, progression, etc.

Good Luck.

[partypooper]

Thanks Wes. yes you are onto what I was getting at. ta!

I'm thinking of calling this Staking plan "Partypooper's gate CRASHER" whadyer reckon??? hee he HEE!

[crash]

I'm thinking of calling this Staking plan "Partypooper's gate CRASHER" whadyer reckon??? hee he HEE!

lol, lol

[crash]

This statement is completely wrong .... I think you miss the whole concept.

There is a huge difference between using 5 banks and 1 bank when it comes to progressive staking and the major difference is that you can (not will) win consistently with 5 banks but you will almost certainly lose with 1 bank.
Good Luck.

I thought we were talking about TARGET STAKING here? If so:

So, we would 'almost certainly' lose using one large bank [$1000] instead of 5 small Banks [$200 each] which 'can [not will] win consistently'.

According to Party's original post in this thread, the banks have nothing to do with the actual Target Staking method or number of bets before we start again after a certain number of loses. They are just banks. So why would the large Bank 'almost certainly' go broke and the small ones win consistently? Is it something to do with % of Bank bet amounts?

So I'm not left completely in the dark, could you please demonstrate with an example that wipes out the large bank but not the small ones? That would be very helpful, thanks.

[wesmip1]

crash,

Here is an example.

I want to make this simple so lets assume 10% of bank then add 10% to each bet until you make a profit or lose. (stupidly risky but this is just for an example).

To determine the losing level it will be a series of 4 losers in a row.

For the examples sequence W=win and L=lose

Sequence =WLLLLWLWWWLWWLWLLLWWWLLLWLLWWLWW

In the above example 1 bank is wiped out after the first 5 bets as there is a 4 losers in a row.

Using 5 banks you will have lost 1 bank but the next bank would probably be in profit.

The result would be completely different. Using 1 bank you are out of the game. Using 5 banks you have spread the risk around and you are now probably either slightly up or only slightly losing.

Using 5 banks spreads the risk around so that when you get hit by that losing streak it only takes out 20% of your overall money. The other 80% has a chance to use the time between the losing streaks to make back that 20%.

Thats a very simplified explanation and I hope it shows the difference.

Good Luck.

[odericko]

very interesting stuff indeed ........NOT...... what a headspin this thread is

[crash]

Wespi1

Your kidding right :-)) ?

Your 'example' would wipe out in the 1st five bets, a $10 bank or a $1 billion bank!

You have created minimal bet $ risk for the small 5 banks [total $1000] and max bet $ risk for the big bank [Total $1000] by using % of bank bets only. Your betting 10% of only 20% of the total capital of the 5 small banks and 10% of 100% of the total big bank capital!

The large bank could also bet 10% of $200 of it's $1000 and naturally end up with exactly the same results as the small banks!

The example is just silly and demonstrates [only] what will happen to ANY bank after using 10% of bank first bet and then adding 10% for each additional bet. It does not demonstrate ANY advantage of 5 small banks compare to one big bank as we can use either any way we want regarding % of bank bets to suit Target staking. Anything you can do with your 5 small banks, I can do with my 1 big bank!

[crash]

Hi Party,

Unless you can come up with a [real] example of the advantages of 5 small banks over one big bank [a perceived psychological advantage is acceptable] that isn't just plain silly, I have to beg to disagree with your logic about any advantage attributed to multiple banks ......and perhaps your [drifting] sanity old fella is at the far end of maths and at the close-up end of waffle :-)) !!!

PS: Just remember, anything you 5 little banks can do my BIG bank can copy!

[wesmip1]

crash,

I do examples quickly and don't always put the necessary detail. thats because I don't have time to do it with a 6 month old daughter.

Here is an example of a sequence where the reuslt is higher for the 5 banks. I have used a very simple example to explain it.

WWLLLLLLWWW

Lets assume when you win it has a $10 profit. Bets start at $10 and everytime there is a loser bet to win you need to bet an extra $10 to get the $10 profit you were chasing. This is a very poor but very simple loss progression system.

5x $200 banks
Results
First bank:
Win $10 - $210
Win $10 - $220
Lost $10 - $210
Lost $20 - $190
Lost $30 - $160
Lost $40 - $120
Lost $50 - $70
Lost $60 - $10
Lost $10 - BANK WIPED OUT.

New Bank
Lost $20 - $180
Lost $30 - $150
WIN $40 - $190
WIN $10 - $200
WIN $10 - $210
WIN $10 - $220
WIN $10 - $230

First lot of 5 banks is now down $170.

Using a $1000 bank ... same rules bet $10 increment 10% after a loss.

Win $10 - $1010
Win $10 - $1020
Lost $10 - $1010
Lost $20 - $990
Lost $30 - $960
Lost $40 - $920
Lost $50 - $870
Lost $60 - $810
Lost $70 - $740
Lost $80 - $660
Lost $90 - $570 -- EQUIVALENT TO LOSING 3 BANKS....
WIN $100 - $670
WIN $10 - $680
WIN $10 - $690
WIN $10 - $700
WIN $10 - $710


First set of 5 banks ... LOT of $170
Using 1 bank .... LOT of $290

This example shows how it makes a difference. It stops the progression from getting out of hand.

Good Luck.

[partypooper]

Hi Party,

Unless you can come up with a [real] example of the advantages of 5 small banks over one big bank [a perceived psychological advantage is acceptable] that isn't just plain silly, I have to beg to disagree with your logic about any advantage attributed to multiple banks ......and perhaps your [drifting] sanity old fella is at the far end of maths and at the close-up end of waffle :-)) !!!

PS: Just remember, anything you 5 little banks can do my BIG bank can copy!

Evening, Crash (mate) to tell you the truth my sanity must be in question, as I can not remember saying anything about 5 banks? or is it the "amber" again?

"OR DID SOMEONE ELSE MENTION 5 BANKS????"

If you're backing a % of the bank then yes $1000 will disappear just as quick as $1,000000, I think that is what you are saying???

In which case, you have completely missed the point of this thread (again) to do a working example I will have to do it on a spreadsheet, which will take me a day or two or I may even decide to post a LIVE example , just to create a stir!! hee! hee! (my name being Partypooper 'n' all)

PS. You know what they say about blokes who have to have BIG cars, or BIG TV's or BIG banks don't you?????? hahahahah!

[jfc]

If you play a true odds (zero-edge) game then you can expect to win exactly as many Banks as you lose.

That situation cannot be changed no matter how much or often you vary your stake or odds - nor by what Bank you choose.

Obviously this assumes that whenever you end up winning more than a Bank, you seed the new game with that excess.


Wesmip,

Once you think hard enough about my assertions above I bet you won't be able to disprove them.

Then hopefully you will stop making posts based on invalid assumptions.

Sub-dividing Banks makes makes absolutely no difference to your Expected Return.

[wesmip1]

jfc,

I still disagree but we can leave it at that. The reason being that if you use 1 bank you will eventually hit the run that knocks you out. That might be 8 losses in a row or it might be 28 losses. Using 5 banks provides added risk management that allows for such a thing to happen.

Good luck.

[crash]

Wesmip,

Once you think hard enough about my assertions above I bet you won't be able to disprove them.

Then hopefully you will stop making posts based on invalid assumptions.

Sub-dividing Banks makes makes absolutely no difference to your Expected Return.

The problem is JFC, wespi1 [genuinely I think] believes the examples he's putting up are mathematically correct and are free of the [obvious] % fiddling he is using to suit the 5 small banks and disadvantage the 1 large bank in the win/loss sequence.

The reason these sort of erroneous staking options have to be challenged, is that many people read these forums and the perpetuation of misleading staking mythology that is in reality, smoke, mirrors and poor maths logic is going to hurt the unsuspecting.

I'm not saying the perpetrators of these sort of math's myths aren't sincere in their belief [ I'm sure Party isn't, he just likes creating mischief :-) ] of what they are promoting to others, I'm just trying to show they need to think it through with a little bit more vigor in the maths logic department before they unintentional misguide other punters.

There is only one way to make a profit in this game and that is to collect more than you outlay. All the fancy fiddling with staking methods and number of banks a punter has won't make the slightest difference to the end result. It's just plain wishful thinking!


Party,

Yes mate, you regularly promote the use of several small banks [5 was just an example number I thought up for the exercise here] and Yep, I like BIG everything, I don't care what they say!!! :-))

[partypooper]

morning Crashy, yes I am a bit of an imp, (but hopefully not arrogant or offensive) and definitly dont have a "need" to resort to personal insults.

Just to clarify 2 points, re: multiple banks
(a) What I have advocted here is, say instead of having one bank betting race to race from 1-8, revolving again next week from race1-8, ...I say,
have 1 bank betting race 1 this week to race 1 next week etc continuing, the same for race 2 ,3, etc so you have 8 banks.

Why do I think this better?, not mathematically the S/R overall remains the same, the average SP remains the same, BUT as you are running 8 different plans (in effect) it's unlikely that all 8 are having a bad run all at the same time, much better on the mind!!

(b) Apart from that, if target betting, yes of course you are going to lose a $500 bank many more times than you would lose a $10,000 if you have the bottle to stick it out to the bitter end, because otherwise you would STOP when your outstanding amount reaches $500, no rocket science there?

But again much better on the mind, and in fact Crash that's why I started this thread, "exactly" to try and get those erratic punters to control and manage their betting better.

In any case mate bully for you that you are in the "Big Mans" dept, but you don't fool me, I happen to know that ANY bloke that admits to reading THAT "MAG" and also admits to quietly running several "systems" also has a bark much "BIGGER" than his bite........ hee hee, have a good day mate!

[crash]

You have good day too Party ....whichever bank your using!!!

[Bhagwan]

I see the nasty one, is going off his head again.

I see nothing wrong with the concept Party, it probably works out better than expected if one of course strikes the winners at the right price when they need them in a given sequence.

Heres a 8 race sequence one may like to check out.
$1 2 3 5 7 10 13 17 19 = $60 x 8 banks = $480

This gives a run of 64 bets.
One needs a $3.20 winner to break even.

If a winner gets up paying less than $3.20, drop back one place then continue.
e.g. winner struck with a $10 bet that pays $2.20 , next bets $7 10 13 ect.

We are assuming that one has the ability to strike one $3.20+ winner within 8 bets.

Cheers.

[crash]

I see the nasty one, is going off his head again.

I see nothing wrong with the concept Party, it probably works out better than expected if one of course strikes the winners at the right price when they need them in a given sequence.

Heres a 8 race sequence one may like to check out.
$1 2 3 5 7 10 13 17 19 = $60 x 8 banks = $480

This gives a run of 64 bets.
One needs a $3.20 winner to break even.

If a winner gets up paying less than $3.20, drop back one place then continue.
e.g. winner struck with a $10 bet that pays $2.20 , next bets $7 10 13 ect.

We are assuming that one has the ability to strike one $3.20+ winner within 8 bets.

Cheers.

And here comes hop-on Cassidy at the last minute. Can't kick goals so he plays the man as usual :-))

Wonderful example hop-on, which proves ....ummmm ....ummmm .....JFC's previous assertion wrong? Nothing whatsoever? Or just a meaningless appendage to display your appetite for slinging personal insults? :-((

[wesmip1]

This will be my last post on this topic.

I like the idea of 5 banks because i have seen it work.
I am not basing my analysis on anything except real life proof.

Evreyone is entitled to their opinion but I suggest that people run a progression staking plan over their previous bets to see if it works for them. If it doesn't then don't use it.

Good Luck.

[jfc]

....

Sequence W=win and L=lose

Sequence =WLLLLWLWWWLWWLWLLLWWWLLLWLLWWLWW

......


=BINOMDIST(8,16,0.5,FALSE)*2^16

=12,870

Wesmip,

That's how many different ways you can permute 8W and 8L.

Cherry picking 1 example - as you have - proves nothing.

Why not run any example you choose through all 6 possible permutations of just 2W and 2L?

LLWW
LWLW
LWWL
WLLW
WLWL
WWLL

Level Stakes returns you ZERO.

Show us all how any Staking Plan and/or Multiple Bank Strategy can improve on that.

[wesmip1]

JFC this is too simple ....

Rules for progresive staking are start at $10 bets. Increase by $10 every time you hit a loser, don't increase after a win and return back to $10 when in profit. Assumption is everyone is a $2 winner.

LLWW = $-10, $-20, $+30 $+30 = $30 Profit
LWLW = $-10, $+20, $-10, $20 = $20 Profit
LWWL = $-10, $+20, $+10, $-10 = $10 Profit -- Didn't finish in a profit so not a complete series as far as a progression plan is concerned.
WLLW = $+10, $-10, $-20, $+30 = $0 Breakeven -- Didn't finish in a profit so not a complete series as far as a progression plan is concerned.
WLWL = $+10, $-10, $+20, $-10 = $10 Profit -- Didn't finish in a profit so not a complete series as far as a progression plan is concerned.
WWLL = $+10, $+10, $-10, $-20 = $-10 LOSS -- Didn't finish in a profit so not a complete series as far as a progression plan is concerned.

Ok so out of the 6 cahllenges you gave me I have come out in front 4 times and at break even once. I only had 1 losing sequence.

Assuming we add all these together ....

$30 + $20 + $10 + $0 + $10 - $10 = $60 PROFIT.... Thats far better than breakeven.

This just proves progressive staking works for those particular series of bets.

As far as using multiple banks the sample is too small a run and to demotrate it using 50% bets would be stupid as it would prove nothing.

AND THIS IS MY LAST POST ON THE TOPIC... I won't be answering more questions on it. People can form their own opinions by running it over their OWN series of bets. Its the only way you can see if it fits your betting style. Personally I wouldn't use this on a low strike rate system.

Good Luck.

[crash]

Well he has truly stuck it to you there JFC! Lol, Lol, Lol ....go wespi1! :-))
You forgot to add the +10% JFC because this was a Target staking plan thread, not flat stakes!

Be blowed if I can see how dividing total capital into several banks will help though [?]

Naturally, REAL punting life won't be so kind as the examples and the usual 'knuckle down screw tight' will come to the fore instead, more often than not :-))

[jfc]

....

WLLW = $+10, $-10, $-20, $+30 = $0 Breakeven -- Didn't finish in a profit so not a complete series as far as a progression plan is concerned.

....



= $10 Profit (in the interests of accuracy)

Wesmip,

I concede I made a mistake in asking you the wrong question.

But that was partly due to trying to make the exercise as simple as possible.

Obviously I should have asked you to work through all 16 possible equally likely permutations. As seen below the cumulative result is ZERO. Just as it would be for Level Stakes.

But surely you would have known what I intended, and that your answer wouldn't hold up when trialled exhaustively.

Note that the penalty for 4 losses is much greater than the reward for an equally likely 4 wins.

Anyway I strongly suggest that all of you still deluded by Staking Plans try the same exercise - even just for 2 or 3 trials. That might help straighten your minds.

And my (revised) challenge remains open to all.

Demonstrate through all permutations how a Staking Plan can make any difference to Level Stakes for a 2, 3 or 4 trial true odds game.



4 trials

LLLL = -10,-20,-30,-40 = -100 : -100
LLLW = -10,-20,-30,+40 = -20 : -120
LLWL = -10,-20,+30,-30 = -30 : -150
LLWW = -10,-20,+30,+30 = +30 : -120
LWLL = -10,+20,-10,-20 = -20 : -140
LWLW = -10,+20,-10,+20 = +20 : -120
LWWL = -10,+20,+10,-10 = +10 : -110
LWWW = -10,+20,+10,+10 = +30 : -80
WLLL = +10,-10,-20,-30 = -50 : -130
WLLW = +10,-10,-20,+30 = +10 : -120
WLWL = +10,-10,+20,-10 = +10 : -110
WLWW = +10,-10,+20,+10 = +30 : -80
WWLL = +10,+10,-10,-20 = -10 : -90
WWLW = +10,+10,-10,+20 = +30 : -60
WWWL = +10,+10,+10,-10 = +20 : -40
WWWW = +10,+10,+10,+10 = +40 : ZERO


2 trials

LL = -10,-20 = -30
LW = -10,+20 = +10
WL = +10,-10 = 0
WW = +10,+10 = +20

ZERO

3 trials

LLL = -10,-20,-30 = -60
LLW = -10,-20,+30 = 0
LWL = -10,+20,-10 = 0
LWW = -10,+20,+10 = +20
WLL = +10,-10,-20 = -20
WLW = +10,-10,+20 = +20
WWL = +10,+10,-10 = +10
WWW = +10,+10,+10 = +30

ZERO

[partypooper]

HUH?

[crash]

= $10 Profit (in the interests of accuracy)

Wesmip,

I concede I made a mistake in asking you the wrong question.

But that was partly due to trying to make the exercise as simple as possible.

Obviously I should have asked you to work through all 16 possible equally likely permutations. As seen below the cumulative result is ZERO. Just as it would be for Level Stakes.

But surely you would have known what I intended, and that your answer wouldn't hold up when trialled exhaustively.

Note that the penalty for 4 losses is much greater than the reward for an equally likely 4 wins.

Anyway I strongly suggest that all of you still deluded by Staking Plans try the same exercise - even just for 2 or 3 trials. That might help straighten your minds.

And my (revised) challenge remains open to all.

Demonstrate through all permutations how a Staking Plan can make any difference to Level Stakes for a 2, 3 or 4 trial true odds game.



4 trials

LLLL = -10,-20,-30,-40 = -100 : -100
LLLW = -10,-20,-30,+40 = -20 : -120
LLWL = -10,-20,+30,-30 = -30 : -150
LLWW = -10,-20,+30,+30 = +30 : -120
LWLL = -10,+20,-10,-20 = -20 : -140
LWLW = -10,+20,-10,+20 = +20 : -120
LWWL = -10,+20,+10,-10 = +10 : -110
LWWW = -10,+20,+10,+10 = +30 : -80
WLLL = +10,-10,-20,-30 = -50 : -130
WLLW = +10,-10,-20,+30 = +10 : -120
WLWL = +10,-10,+20,-10 = +10 : -110
WLWW = +10,-10,+20,+10 = +30 : -80
WWLL = +10,+10,-10,-20 = -10 : -90
WWLW = +10,+10,-10,+20 = +30 : -60
WWWL = +10,+10,+10,-10 = +20 : -40
WWWW = +10,+10,+10,+10 = +40 : ZERO


2 trials

LL = -10,-20 = -30
LW = -10,+20 = +10
WL = +10,-10 = 0
WW = +10,+10 = +20

ZERO

3 trials

LLL = -10,-20,-30 = -60
LLW = -10,-20,+30 = 0
LWL = -10,+20,-10 = 0
LWW = -10,+20,+10 = +20
WLL = +10,-10,-20 = -20
WLW = +10,-10,+20 = +20
WWL = +10,+10,-10 = +10
WWW = +10,+10,+10 = +30

ZERO

Sorry JFC, but the progressive bet believers amd target bettors ect. [basically any loss chasing betting system by another name], will just blink a few times at the glaring proof you provided [or any other], that loss chasing systems can't work in the long run, and just go on believing the myths and keep on perpetrating them on a regular basis to unsuspecting punters :-))

[go4it]

Haven't posted on here for a long time,and after reading some of the drivel in this thread I know why.
Only Crash and JFC speak the truth.
The rest is just plain rubbish.
If your selection method cannot make a profit at level stakes don't be fooled into thinking that any kind of progression can turn that around.
Betting to win $20 a race in the manner suggested is fraught with danger.as during the losing run the bets can and will escalate rapidly out of most punters comfort zone.
A more realistic approach would be to aim at $2 per race.
Been there,done that,it don't work.
No offence Baghwan,but if one can only back 1 winner@$3.20 every 8 bets,just to break even,I would suggest one should choose another hobby.
You don't need 8 banks,I would suggest 2.
Halve your capital,one half is the operational and the other is the reserve bank which is only brought into play when needed.
Be very selective and only bet 2% of the bank on any selection.
As the bank increases so do you bet sizes,and hopefully your profits.
Nothing new,not rocket science,just good old common sense.

[partypooper]

go4it, glad you enjoy reading our drivel, but maybe you should read it again as you have missed the point by about a Country mile mate. If you're running 8 plans simulataniously you (Theoretically) need 8 banks, though of course if you were anywhere needing to use all of them totally , you would have already given up and started laying your selections on betfair instead.

The idea of targeting to win $20 per race (e.g.) is using a plan that shows about 9% POT (level stakes). so all this drivel about loss chasing is totally irrelevant.

[crash]

Unless a punter is simple minded Party [and I know your not], why does he need 8 banks to run 8 plans? If he can't manage his betting from one bank, keep records of the progress of each plan and even bet % of a set portion of bank allocated to each plan if he likes [any number is possible], he should take up bingo!

[partypooper]

Morning Crashy, a bit quick off the hip this morning arn't we?
yes mate that's why I said "THEORETICALLY" meaning that: although as I was suggesting $500 for each plan; you wouldn't actually need to have $4,000 available, (as you rightly point out) cos if you dropped anywhere near that you would have ALREADY taken up Lotto. In fact that's the whloe idea, spreading the risk over 8 seperate sequences rather than run one sequence race to race, and as already suggested it's unlikely that all 8 would be in a bad patch all at the same time.

[crash]

OK Party, I get your picture. It could be done differently of course but whatever suits the individual is fine.

[go4it]

Absolute rubbish.

With a capital"R".

Just like"PPM movers.

More rubbish.

You are right in one sense,it belongs in a bingo hall with all the old blue rinsers.

[partypooper]

go4it, very informative input there mate, take it easy, there are pills available you know!

[partypooper]

Unless a punter is simple minded Party [and I know your not], why does he need 8 banks to run 8 plans? If he can't manage his betting from one bank, keep records of the progress of each plan and even bet % of a set portion of bank allocated to each plan if he likes [any number is possible], he should take up bingo!

Just as an afterthought here Crash, a slight difference here is that we have allocated $500 (max) to target $20 per race/selection until that bank is broken (or not) the selection being determined from a particular plan that shows 9% POT at levels. (min bet as if 3-1 EVEN if less, and 8-1 EVEN if more)

Quick eg.
Sat 2nd June 2007 Perth race 1, selection is 2-1 Target is $20, so we bet $7 (as if 3-1) it lost so.....

Sat 9th June 2007 Perth race 1, Target is $47, selection is 5-1 so we bet $10 it lost so......

Sat 16th June 2007 Perth race 1, Target is $77 selection is 10-1 so we bet $10 (as if 8-1) etc etc etc

occasionally you will hit a winner at MORE than 8-1 but you have backed it
as IF it was 8-1 so you win more than the actual accumulated target. (i.e. $20 per race + losses to date)


This sequence is repeated for each race 1-8 so we have 8 sequences running simultaniously, race 2, to race 2, to race 2, race 3 to race 3, to race 3 etc etc
The purpose of the thread was to discuss the idea of betting week to week for each race 1-8 (eg. Perth) rather than race to race 1-8 and then repeated next week, but somehow seems to have digressed into arguing about "loss chasing" which is totally irrelevant.

Any more CONSTRUCTIVE critisism, not just "one eyed" screams of "rubbish"

PS I think after 4 years or so most people here (apart from a few extra terrestials riding in golden charriots) realise that the tongue in cheek named PPM (Partypoopers Plum Movers) for saturdays and Big carnivals only is a bit of fun system that ironically pulls some amazing winners the best I think was 350-1, the rule again working up from the bottom of the field the selection is the first one that has a d or c in it's form ... thats it! (Thats using WA -Tab- Form who only list a d or c winner if it has won at the EXACT distance.

[Bhagwan]

I Sir, shall step forward to take up your bold challenge .

If one can turn the given layout of the exercise into a profit, would that prove anything to you ?
I feel you & your giggling side kick would still be in denial if it was , then try & make excuses why it still cant work.

Dont forget , you created the exercise of THE CHALLENGE to any one who can turn this into a profit because you believe it cant be done, because someone with a pointy head told you so.

I'm sorry, but I get the feeling, one has not done much research into the matter of staking plans & money management except for a hand full of commercial plans that may have been questionable to start with.

Now for THE CHALLENGE.
The exercise we will demonstrate, is a method that can work with the right application.
We will selecect a plan from our armoury of staking plans.
The one we will use today, is, The Crusher.
So called, because it is designed to hopefully crush the odds into our favour to recoup all losses plus a profit if the right winners get up...
It is only to be used where there is a 50%+ expected SR
.
It only increases the bet after a win.
The idea is to start with say a $10 bet & when a winner gets up, increase the next bet to $30 then $50 then $70 after each winner .
e.g. 10w 30w 30 30 30w 50 50w 70 ect
We only increase the bet after a win.

All divs at even money.
Sequence-----Bets----O/L--Ret
LLLL ----10 10 10 10 = 40--0
LLLW ---10 10 10 10 = 40--20
LLWL ---10 10 10 30 = 60--20
LLWW --10 10 10 30 = 60--80
LWLL ---10 10 30 30 = 80--20
LWLW --10 10 30 30 = 80--80
LWWL --10 10 30 50 = 100--80
LWWW -10 10 30 50 = 100--180
WLLLL --10 30 30 30 = 100--20
WLLW --10 30 30 30 =100--80
WLWL --10 30 30 50 = 120--80
WLWW -10 30 30 50 = 120--180
WWLL --10 30 50 50 = 140--80
WWLW -10 30 50 50 =140--180
WWWL -10 30 50 70 = 160--320
WWWW -10 30 50 70 = 160--320

Total Ret $1740
Total O/L $1600
Profit +140 = 8.75% POT on a ZERO expectation.

4 x 16 = 64 bets
Only 6 of the 16, 4 run sequences , produced a profit = 37.5% success rate which is pretty ordinary & it still managed to recoup all losses plus squeez a profit.

This maybe answers the question of , do short run staking plans have there place?.... Most definitly with the right application & SR to suit.
It also helps the punter breath a lot easier about their betting .

If one wished to bolt all the results together as one continious bet, one could show a profit with the above results using any number of staking plans
Which would turn the above results into a 22%+ POT depending on which plan one wished to run with.
The staking plan Wesmip uses is more geared towards betting in a longer sequence than 4, as I feel he tried to indicate where he states the sequence was incomplete, which is fair enough .
I feel there is no need to berate the chap because you mis-read what he clearly stated.

Just for the exercise , we will now try this plan on the 3 result sequence .


-----------Bets---O/L--Ret
LLL ----10 10 10 =30 -- 0
LLW --- 10 10 10 = 30- 20
LWL---- 10 10 30 = 50--20
LWW--- 10 10 30 = 50--80
WLL---- 10 30 30 =70 -20
WLW--- 10 30 30 = 70 -80
WWL--- 10 30 30 = 70 --80
WWW - 10 30 50 = 90--180

Total Ret 480
Total O/L 460
Profit +20 = 4.35% POT on a Zero expectation.

Only 4 of the 8 runs produced a profit & still recouped all losses plus a profit.

I hope this answers the question of, can staking plans make a difference over level Stakes?
Also ..Can short run staking plans, have their losses recouped after a few negative runs & still show a profit?

Cheers.

[jfc]

Bhagwan,

Thank you for troubling to attempt this challenge.

But I note that there are errors in both your examples. When corrected both staking examples will produce ZERO % POT.

Many individuals should benefit from the exercise of trying to spot the errors, so I won't spoil it for them by specifying the corrections.

The point of these exercises is that someone should learn something.

[crash]

Bagman, it looks as if your main exercise here was to get a couple of more personal insults in, not to dazzle us, with your grasp of maths., surely? Then again, maybe you were attempting both :-))

Bet progressions after a loss OR after a win, end up with ZERO advantage over flat stakes!

Bagman, you don't have a vested interest in selling systems that rely on progression betting have you? You've certainly flogged the progression myth to death here over the years, with enough regularity to make me wonder [?].

[AngryPixie]

LLLL -10 -10 -10 -10 = -40
LLLW -10 -10 -10 +10 = -20
LLWL -10 -10 +10 -30 = -40
LWLL -10 +10 -30 -30 = -60
WLLL +10 -30 -30 -30 = -80
LLWW -10 -10 +10 +30 = +20
LWLW -10 +10 -30 +30 = 0
WLLW +10 -30 -30 +30 = -20
LWWL -10 +10 +30 -50 = -20
WLWL +10 -30 +30 -50 = -40
WWLL +10 +30 -50 -50 = -60
LWWW -10 +10 +30 +50 = +70
WLWW +10 -30 +30 +50 = +60
WWLW +10 +30 -50 +50 = +40
WWWL +10 +30 +50 -70 = +10
WWWW +10 +30 +50 +70 = +150

= -30


Assumes all wins are at even money.

[crash]

-----------Bets---O/L--Ret
LLL ----10 10 10 =30 -- 0
LLW --- 10 10 10 = 30- 20
LWL---- 10 10 30 = 50--20
LWW--- 10 10 30 = 50--80
WLL---- 10 30 30 =70 -20
WLW--- 10 30 30 = 70 -80
WWL--- 10 30 30 = 70 --80
WWW - 10 30 50 = 90--180

Total Ret 480
Total O/L 460
Profit +20 = 4.35% POT on a Zero expectation.



Cheers.

Sorry Bagman, go back to school!

-----------Bets---O/L--Ret
LLL ----10 10 10 =30 -- 0
LLW --- 10 10 10 = 30--20
LWL---- 10 10 30 = 50--20
LWW--- 10 10 30 = 50--80
WLL---- 10 30 10 =50 --20
WLW--- 10 30 10 = 50 --40
WWL--- 10 30 50 = 90 --80
WWW - 10 30 50 = 90--180

Total Ret 440
Total O/L 440

Profit ZERO!!!

So that's your 'CRUSHER' system is it Bagman ???

Whaaaaaahaaahaaa!!!! lol.lol :-))

[crash]

And here is your other example Bagman with bet sequence 'fudges' [also] removed.

Sequence-----Bets----O/L--Ret
LLLL ----10 10 10 10 = 40--0
LLLW ---10 10 10 10 = 40--20
LLWL ---10 10 10 30 = 60--20
LLWW --10 10 10 30 = 60--80
LWLL ---10 10 30 10 = 60--20
LWLW --10 10 30 10 = 60--40
LWWL --10 10 30 50 = 100--80
LWWW -10 10 30 50 = 100--180
WLLLL --10 30 10 10 = 60--20
WLLW --10 30 10 10 = 60--40
WLWL --10 30 10 30 = 80--40
WLWW -10 30 10 30 = 80--100
WWLL --10 30 50 10 = 100--80
WWLW -10 30 50 10 =100--100
WWWL -10 30 50 70 = 160--180
WWWW -10 30 50 70 = 160--320

O/L 1320
Ret 1320

Profit: ZERO!!

Were these two "CRUSHER' examples taken directly from your old system selling promo circular Bagman? lol.lol :-))

[AngryPixie]

LLL -10 -10 -10 = -30
LLW -10 -10 +10 = -10
LWL -10 +10 -30 = -30
WLL +10 -30 -30 = -50
LWW -10 +10 +30 = +30
WLW +10 -30 +30 = +10
WWL +10 +30 -50 = -10
WWW +10 +30 +50 = +90

= 0


Assumes all wins at even money.

Hope I've got your progression correct. Best of luck

[crash]

LLL -10 -10 -10 = -30
LLW -10 -10 +10 = -10
LWL -10 +10 -30 = -30
WLL +10 -30 -30 = -50
LWW -10 +10 +30 = +30
WLW +10 -30 +30 = +10
WWL +10 +30 -30 = +10
WWW +10 +30 +50 = +80

= +10


Assumes all wins at even money.

Hope I've got your progression correct. Best of luck

Check your bets sequences again Angry:

Line 4 should be: WLL 10/30/10
Line 6 should be: WLW 10/30/10
Line 7 should be: WWL 10/30/50

Bagman's 'CRUSHER' has been crushed:-))

Cheers.

[AngryPixie]

Yes corrected now I think. It did look odd. It's the coffe that does it :o

[jfc]

LLL -10 -10 -10 = -30
LLW -10 -10 +10 = -10
LWL -10 +10 -30 = -30
WLL +10 -30 -30 = -50
LWW -10 +10 +30 = +30
WLW +10 -30 +30 = +10
WWL +10 +30 -50 = -10
WWW +10 +30 +50 = +80

= -10


Assumes all wins at even money.

Hope I've got your progression correct. Best of luck

Re-arranging the perms as you have does not aid clarity.

WWW +10 +30 +50 = +90

NOT = +80

So correct total is ZERO.

[AngryPixie]

Re-arranging the perms as you have does not aid clarity.


Yes particularly my clarity :D Botched that one up. Where's that bucket of sand. Wonder what my biorythms are like today? Oh dear. That can't be good. Look at those. And I got told off by the headmaster :(

I'll leave the fight to you guys.

[partypooper]

Phew, I didn't realise that there was so much interest in "TARGET" betting

[jfc]

LLLL -10 -10 -10 -10 = -40
LLLW -10 -10 -10 +10 = -20
LLWL -10 -10 +10 -30 = -40
LWLL -10 +10 -30 -30 = -60
WLLL +10 -30 -30 -30 = -80
LLWW -10 -10 +10 +30 = +20
LWLW -10 +10 -30 +30 = 0
WLLW +10 -30 -30 +30 = -20
LWWL -10 +10 +30 -50 = -20
WLWL +10 -30 +30 -50 = -40
WWLL +10 +30 -50 -50 = -60
LWWW -10 +10 +30 +50 = +70
WLWW +10 -30 +30 +50 = +60
WWLW +10 +30 -50 +50 = +40
WWWL +10 +30 +50 -70 = +10
WWWW +10 +30 +50 +70 = +150

= -30


Assumes all wins are at even money.

With these corrections:

LWWW -10 +10 +30 +50 = +80
WWWL +10 +30 +50 -70 = +20
WWWW +10 +30 +50 +70 = +160

Total = ZERO

[AngryPixie]

With these corrections:

LWWW -10 +10 +30 +50 = +80
WWWL +10 +30 +50 -70 = +20
WWWW +10 +30 +50 +70 = +160

Total = ZERO

I know. Embarrasing isn't it. I'm not coming out of my room for a week.

Thanks JFC. It's important stuff I'm messing up for you. Keep up the fight.

[partypooper]

can't resist, LLWW etc, simplified even further, the example shows that you would have had 30 bets @ $10, 22 bets @ $30, 10 bets @ $50, & 2 bets @ $70, (this cannot change over time) in all cases the S/R remains the same i.e. 50% @ even money so result = ZERO, just my bit!

[crash]

Yes particularly my clarity :D Botched that one up. Where's that bucket of sand. Wonder what my biorythms are like today? Oh dear. That can't be good. Look at those. And I got told off by the headmaster :(

I'll leave the fight to you guys.

lol.lol

Angry,
Definitely good for a decent laugh this thread!

You got any more systems with names like 'CRUSHER" Bagman? 'THE HAMMER' would be a good name or how about 'DEAD MAN WALKING'? How much did you used to flog the 'Crusher' for mate?

whaaahaaaHaaaa!!! :-))

[go4it]

Here's a reality check for you insult slingers.
Pooper suggested winning $20 per race.
Wes suggested betting $10 and doubling up.
Okay,being conservative and aiming at a $10 target per race,and backing even money favs,look at this scenario.
Bet 1 $10 loss
Bet 2 $20 loss
Bet 3 $40 loss
Bet 4 $80 loss
Bet 5 $160 loss
Bet 6 $320 loss
Bet 7 $640 loss
After only 7 bets you are down $1270.
Don't kid yourself that it won't happen.
Going for the suggested $20 per race you can double that.
As I said,only Crash and JFC speak the truth.

[Beagle]

I really think it is time this thread was closed down. There is too much b******t going on at the moment. Let's call a truce and agree that not all ideas are the same for all people. The longer this goes on the nastier people seem to be getting and there are too many very good people being abused and I mean that on both sides of the fence.

[partypooper]

[QUOTE=partypooper]Just as an afterthought here Crash, a slight difference here is that we have allocated $500 (max) to target $20 per race/selection until that bank is broken (or not) the selection being determined from a particular plan that shows 9% POT at levels. (min bet as if 3-1 EVEN if less, and 8-1 EVEN if more)

Quick eg.
Sat 2nd June 2007 Perth race 1, selection is 2-1 Target is $20, so we bet $7 (as if 3-1) it lost so.....

Sat 9th June 2007 Perth race 1, Target is $47, selection is 5-1 so we bet $10 it lost so......

Sat 16th June 2007 Perth race 1, Target is $77 selection is 10-1 so we bet $10 (as if 8-1) etc etc etc

occasionally you will hit a winner at MORE than 8-1 but you have backed it
as IF it was 8-1 so you win more than the actual accumulated target. (i.e. $20 per race + losses to date)

Starting from scratch if every selection is 3-1 or less (all backed as if 3-1) we can cover to 9 bets with $568. In reality as this is not a favs system the selections will range from 3-1 to 20-1 (a few) so the actual coverage without a winner to break the bank would average 15+, losers. It's very rare that a bank is broken in this way, more likely where we have had a residual carried over and then hit a few losers THATS what breaks it.

[crash]

I really think it is time this thread was closed down. There is too much b******t going on at the moment. Let's call a truce and agree that not all ideas are the same for all people. The longer this goes on the nastier people seem to be getting and there are too many very good people being abused and I mean that on both sides of the fence.

Totally agree. When people come out swinging their holier than thou opinions and start them off with insults, they better be spot-on in their maths or look out! Sadly the perpetrator here likes playing the man ..well his maths was awful and he copped just deserts as far as I'm concerned. But enough is enough.

Time for us all to go home with our bats and balls I think.

[partypooper]

Phew! did I cause all that?

[crash]

You do like to create mischief old boy :-))

[Chrome Prince]

Partypooper, you partypooper ;)

[partypooper]

Chrome, yup! hee hee! Crashy, hey not so "old" I've got a 1 yo and a 4yo! (as well as a 36yo a 34yo and a 17yo, from the first time round )

[wesmip1]

I have no idea why I keep posting here when I said I would stop but ....

People seem to care way too much about theory... and we know that theory doesn't always work in practice so I prefer to do a run over a real series of bets... it is always more interesting.....

Here is my bets so far this month ... REAL BETS with REAL MONEY. This isn't some made up series. My Long term average is 32%. This series is showing a strike rate of 27.7%. The long term Avg Divi is $3.12. This series has a Avg Divi of $3.31.

Odds = Odds I got either from the TAB or Betfair.
Res = Result where 1 = WIN and 0 = loss. ( so many 2nds this month its frustrating.)
Level Stakes is a simple $10 bet
Running Progressive is the bank size using my progressive bets.
My maximum bet is $100 or 10% of starting bank.

Yes it has wild swings ... Thats the life of progressive betting. But since apparently there is no way to turn a negative into a positive (unless you multiply it by -1) how am I showing a profit when level stakes shows a loss.

As I said I just like to see real life examples and for some reason it works with my style of betting.

Odds Res Level Stakes Progressive
1000 1000
3.75 0 990 990
4.4 0 980 978
5.3 1 1023 1038.2
3.9 0 1013 1028.2
4.5 1 1048 1070.2
3.25 0 1038 1059.2
3.65 0 1028 1046.2
3.5 0 1018 1031.2
2.42 1 1032.2 1055.34
2.9 0 1022.2 1042.34
2.14 1 1033.6 1059.44
4.3 0 1023.6 1047.44
4.2 0 1013.6 1033.44
3.15 0 1003.6 1016.44
4.5 0 993.6 996.44
2.84 0 983.6 973.44
4.7 0 973.6 946.44
2.06 1 984.2 979.3
3.75 0 974.2 953.3
4.2 0 964.2 923.3
3.45 0 954.2 888.3
4.4 0 944.2 847.3
5 0 934.2 799.3
3.1 1 955.2 916.9
4.6 0 945.2 880.9
3.4 1 969.2 981.7
3.75 0 959.2 956.7
2.92 0 949.2 926.7
2.9 0 939.2 891.7
4.8 0 929.2 851.7
5.6 0 919.2 804.7
2.68 1 936 897.1
4 0 926 857.1
2.24 0 916 811.1
1.97 0 906 757.1
4.1 0 896 694.1
2.78 1 913.8 824.04
3.65 0 903.8 772.04
3.8 0 893.8 712.04
3.45 0 883.8 642.04
4.5 0 873.8 560.04
2.32 0 863.8 464.04
4.5 1 898.8 814.04
3.8 1 926.8 962.44
4.5 0 916.8 933.44
5.1 0 906.8 900.44
3.25 1 929.3 988.19
2.98 1 949.1 1035.71
4.2 0 939.1 1019.71
5 0 929.1 1000.71
3.7 1 956.1 1060.11
5.7 0 946.1 1048.11
3.15 1 967.6 1078.21
1.85 0 957.6 1067.21

People can say stop as much as they want but while this makes me a consistent profit month after month I see no reason to take any advice apart from stick with what works. I have more than tripled my bank balance without losing a bank yet. Every time I double up I go back to the same starting bank of $1000.

Good Luck.

[crash]

Stick it to us wespi! Your just a good punter. Maths has nothing to do with it!

[Bhagwan]

It looks like its easy to easy to make a mistake in this .

Line 15 ret S/B 180 not 320 Diff 140
In other example.
Line 7 WLW S/B 10 30 50 Diff 20
End result Zero

Hi Crash , just for the exercise , one may wish to double check that entry for Line 6 WWL 10 30 30 S/B 10 30 50
Line 7 WLW 10 30 10 S/B 10 30 30
It made no difference to the final result .

Cheers.

[jfc]

I have no idea why I keep posting here when I said I would stop but ....

People seem to care way too much about theory... and we know that theory doesn't always work in practice so I prefer to do a run over a real series of bets... it is always more interesting.....

Here is my bets so far this month ... REAL BETS with REAL MONEY. This isn't some made up series. My Long term average is 32%. This series is showing a strike rate of 27.7%. The long term Avg Divi is $3.12. This series has a Avg Divi of $3.31.

Odds = Odds I got either from the TAB or Betfair.
Res = Result where 1 = WIN and 0 = loss. ( so many 2nds this month its frustrating.)
Level Stakes is a simple $10 bet
Running Progressive is the bank size using my progressive bets.
My maximum bet is $100 or 10% of starting bank.

Yes it has wild swings ... Thats the life of progressive betting. But since apparently there is no way to turn a negative into a positive (unless you multiply it by -1) how am I showing a profit when level stakes shows a loss.

As I said I just like to see real life examples and for some reason it works with my style of betting.

......


People can say stop as much as they want but while this makes me a consistent profit month after month I see no reason to take any advice apart from stick with what works. I have more than tripled my bank balance without losing a bank yet. Every time I double up I go back to the same starting bank of $1000.

Good Luck.

Unbelievable.

Your sample does make a level stakes profit of nearly 20%.

Providing you only bet when the Odds >= 2 and < 4.

You Loss-Chasing POT is abysmal by comparison.

If you go back through all your records you should be able to find simple filters such as those above to get a positive POT.

[crash]

Correct me if I've misunderstood your figures wespi, but your making a profit because your selections as a whole has a +positive edge [good picking of actual bets], not a -negative edge or nil edge.

Basically your collecting more than your outlaying on your bets, so you are making a profit. If your strike a big run of outs though, you can easily wipe out a lot more past profit that a flat stakes approach. And as we all know those long run of outs do hit us all every now and then. any profit from progression has been more to do with good fortune rather than what will/might happen in the long term.

Your average odds has helped keep you out of trouble so far too. If you moved your odds range up, which would lower your SR naturally, you would be into serious problems very quickly.

[crash]

Your edge wespi by the way is 20%. good fortune with your progression has allowed you to improve on that. But I would set my future on it continuing above 20% long term.

Something sobering to consider: I once had a run of 16 outs of odds-on only bets!

[stugots]

I once had a run of 16 outs of odds-on only bets!

& your still punting??

as i seem to recall you espousing once crash - bwwaahhhaawbbwaaahhhaaa!

mod, do us all a favour & close this mess

[TWOBETS]

This is really directed to the jfc's and like minded types of the world. I've got to agree that your arguments on staking ring true for me.

But.............. I can't get my head around a thought that I mentioned in a previous post but was ignored by all as the rantings of a mad man. (very astute forumites!).

Thing is, with a simple returns game (roulette for example) the maths is very easy to quantify and the returns are of course calculated with a guaranteed loss to the long term player.

With the nags of course the divvy might reflect a horses chances........ or then again it might not. A $2.00 favourite may in fact have a snowballs chance of winning or maybe a $6.00 pick couldn't lose even if it stopped for a picnic.

So these are the horses ACTUAL chance of winning I'm talking about. Something nobody may know.( except Dr Who of course!)

It seems to me then that the mechanics of chance from race to race is a very different animal in this game , but we don't see it because we simplify all to average SR etc.

Would this difference account for the successful application of betting strategies that would otherwise go out the window in the roulette example?

[Top Rank]

Yes!!!!!

[jfc]

.....

It seems to me then that the mechanics of chance from race to race is a very different animal in this game , but we don't see it because we simplify all to average SR etc.

Would this difference account for the successful application of betting strategies that would otherwise go out the window in the roulette example?


TwoBets,

The majority of Staking Systems are euphemisms for loss chasing.

Despite real life appearances they can't turn around negative expectation plays.

And if they do eke out a profit it will be far less than what would be expected from a sensible approach consistent with the well-known and misunderstood Kelly Criterion.

This thread is now way too wayward, but if you devote a new thread towards your ideas I'll be happy to expand on mine.

[crash]

Oh no, not the Kelly!

The problem for the Kelly or even 1/2 Kelly JFC, is that it's cornerstone is based on knowing the REAL odds[?] Without them the bet calculations would be all over the shop.

[jfc]

Oh no, not the Kelly!

The problem for the Kelly or even 1/2 Kelly JFC, is that it's cornerstone is based on knowing the REAL odds[?] Without them the bet calculations would be all over the shop.

Please read what I actually wrote.

If you don't know the true Odds then obviously you can't use the Kelly Criterion.

However you can still use a method consistent with it.

For example I believe that in all cases loss-chasing is inconsistent with Kelly.

[Bhagwan]

Hi Two bets
I believe the average price has to be 2/1 & over, if one is to use any sort of prograssion because it ends up getting very hard to get ahead.

The fluctating end result prices does make a difference in a sequence which is something not talked about by the maths chaps.
They tend to talk about fixed prices of odds & evens or fixed at 2/1.

They dont mention the odd $6.00-8.00 winner that can pop up in a given sequence.

Cheers.

[crash]

If you don't know the true Odds then obviously you can't use the Kelly Criterion.

However you can still use a method consistent with it.


Out of interest, what method would that be?

[jfc]

Out of interest, what method would that be?

NEVER chase losses.

NEVER bet when you are not expecting a positive edge.

If you believe you have a positive edge then 2 alternative rational approaches for choosing a Bank Fraction are:

Assume you have a constant edge of (say) 10% and stake in inverse proportion to fractional odds.

e.g. for 1/1 (aka even money) 10%

for 10/1 10/10% = 1%

Or if you believe (as I often do) that your edge increases with available odds then bet a flat % of your Bank.

e.g. 2% would be consistent with a 20% strike rate.

[travelrock]

a good staking plan wont save a bad system

work out a basic system based on logic and test it over time with a basic staking plan and if it works, then you can become more sophisticated with your betting

basically i believe the bigger the overs the bigger the bet but never chase loses, they are gone, each bet should be viewed as independent of the past and based on some logic and pricing method

having a system that works will get you in front, then the better you can frame a market the more you will make