Staking Plan

[michaelg]

I've never really given much thought to staking plans. However, let's look at the following scenario:

1 ) Bet the fave for $1.
2 ) After a loss increase the bet by $1

Assume there are 4 successive losers and the fifth fave wins paying $2.00. The outlay has then been a total of $15 ($1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). The return is $10 which is a loss of $5.

With level stakes the outlay has been $5 for a return of $2 which is a loss of $3.

The loss with the staking plan by my calcs is 33%, whilst the loss with level stakes is 60%.

And if the winning fave paid $3, then it would be a break-even result with the staking plan but a loss of 40% (I think) with level stakes.

From this it would seem that the above staking plan might have merit. And even more so with Betfair where the fave has approx a break-even result for faves.

Just a thought...

[ubetido]

If your strike rates don't come in as you have anticipated or the odds are not correct nothing will really save you.

The problem as i see it is with progression your bets increase and the longer it goes the worse it gets.

With level stakes if the long run of outs comes it is difficult to get out of the hole.

So its assumptions and money mangement and calculations for the downside must be done. Whats the exit strategy, how do you pull yourself out and not leave the money on the table so to speak.

Do you have enough funds to sustain the worst x 4.

This will then boost your confidence.

Cheers
U

[michaelg]

Hi, Ubetido.

Yes, that's the problem - a long run of outs whether its a level or staking plan.

However, whichever way I look at it, the staking plan seems superior, except for the stress factor. Taking it a step further than my previous figures - if after a string of 14 losers a $2 winner is struck, then the outlay would have been $120 for a return of $30 - a loss of 75%. Whilst with level betting the outlay would have been $15 for a return of $2 for a loss of 86%. And the larger the divvy, then the smaller the loss with the staking plan.

Of course, there could be many variations. For example, only increasing the bet after three successive losers, then if the next three bets are losers only then the bet is increased. This would reduce the loss but also reduce any profit.

I'm not considering using it, but I was curious about comparing results.

[crash]

If the 5th bet loses you have dug a serious hole 1+2+3+4+5=15 loss total.
If it wins at $2 you get back $10 for a loss of $5 total.

Flat bet is $5 total bet for 5 bets. $5 total loss if the 5th bet loses, but you have only risked $5 not $15. If it wins you lose $3 total for risking $5.

In the progression you have risked $15 and will lose $15 if the 5th bet doesn't win. If it does win, you have achieved a loss of $5 [instead of $15] for an outlay risk of $15. Crazy stuff!

Odds wise, you have been getting collectively shorter and shorter [not longer] odds the more you progressively bet.

[michaelg]

True, the more you bet on the staking plan because of successive losers then the shorter the odds become. However, when a winner is struck it seems that the loss percentage-wise is less than level stakes betting (might even produce a profit), but on the other hand it is riskier dollar-wise.

[crash]

No that's not right. At $2 odds the progression bet is insane even with a win on the the 5th bet as you have lost $5 and risked $15 to do it. So if your 'lucky' you lost $5 on a $15 bet all up. Your actually 'chasing' a $5 loss and feeling better off about it! Totally crazy.

With your progression, you must [also] chase perpetually higher odds or accept progressively worse odds. Naturally the higher the odds, the harder it becomes to win. In the end ,regardless of stopping and starting again, you will be eventually betting $50 to win $5 [great odds]. Boom, boom.

The maths are here in this forum by mathematicians [several times] that prove that progressions eventually always lose. The only way they win is with a lucky run of ins. The best bet is to improve SR with flat bets that have winning prices that put you in front. There is no way to turn lead into gold I'm afraid which is the progressive punters aim. Bookies would go broke if there was because we would all be doing it.

[Crackone]

Progressive betting will work if your system makes a profit at level stakes. The only thing that progressive betting does is increase turnover which increases loses or winnings.

[crash]

Yes, if your winning progressive bets increase your profits, but if your losing they increase your loses. boom, boom.

[michaelg]

Crash, I'm not saying its a good or bad method - all I'm saying is that my examples show a lesser loss percentage-wise compared to level stakes.

[Bhagwan]

Hi Michaelg,
I like certain progressional plans & here is one that should break even at half of a level stakes loss if the winners fall in the right spot.
The maths work out approx the same as the progressional you mentioned, only it is at half the outlay.

Example over 20 bets
Your original 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 = 210
One would need a collective odds of 9.5/1 to break even on the 20th bet.
As opposed to 19/1 at level stakes.

Using the Duel step method
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 = 110
One would need collective odds of 10/1 to break even on the 20th bet.
Similar result to your original, but approx half the O/L .
That's a huge difference on capital outlay to achieve a similar end result.

Keep in mind that it is impossible to break even on level stakes betting if the odds add up to less than the number of winners.
But it is possible to show a profit on a progressional where the odds fall short of breaking even if one can pick the winners for the end result.

All staking plans rely on the ability to hit winners whether level stakes or progressional, lets keep reminding ourselves of that.

If one is to use any progressional, it is important to have say 2 or more banks & have a cut off rule as to when to write off ones losses & start again.
It is also imprtant to know what the probable logest run of outs could be in relation to one historic SR then set staking to accomodate at least double that.

Cheers.

[crash]

Crash, I'm not saying its a good or bad method - all I'm saying is that my examples show a lesser loss percentage-wise compared to level stakes.

Isn't that the same as saying you win more [lose less] with progressive staking? If not, give us an example thanks as I can't see what you mean.

[michaelg]

Crash, all I'm saying is according to my three examples that when a winner is struck, then the loss percentage-wise with the staking system has a smaller loss percentage-wise than when betting level stakes.

I am neither endorsing or decrying any stakings plan, all I did was to show the comparison which intrigued me especially as I have never had much interest in staking methods.

[crash]

I've never really given much thought to staking plans. However, let's look at the following scenario:

1 ) Bet the fave for $1.
2 ) After a loss increase the bet by $1

Assume there are 4 successive losers and the fifth fave wins paying $2.00. The outlay has then been a total of $15 ($1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). The return is $10 which is a loss of $5.

With level stakes the outlay has been $5 for a return of $2 which is a loss of $3.

The loss with the staking plan by my calcs is 33%, whilst the loss with level stakes is 60%.

Just a thought...

I'm not trying to be contentious, but you might like to check out your maths 'conclusions'. It's easy to do, but you have tricked yourself into drawing wrong conclusions from unrelated percentages.

The two percentages are unrelated in any shape or form as the total amounts bet are very different. 60% represents a $3 loss on 5 bets. 33% represents a $5 loss from progressive bets. It's what the % means, not the size of it. Give me 10% of a $1000 over 50% of $100 any day. Just as I'd take a 60% loss on $5 rather than a 33% loss on $15 any day.

[michaelg]

Crash, I am aware of everything you say. I even more or less confirmed it in posting no.5 of this thread when I said "it is riskier dollar-wise".

I was intrigued with the loss percentage of the plan compared with that of level stakes, and that is the only reason I posted it here - nothing more, nothing less.

[crash]

Fine mate.