advice

[stugots]

trialling a new selection method & have so far managed the following figures, & has been returning consistent results since dec 07 (even when ive bet on them...) -

total bets - 509
winners - 89
strike rate - 17.5%
average div - $10.56
max div - $37.80
min div - $1.40
pot - 84%
longest run of outs to date - 24

any comments or observations welcome

[Silver_and_sand]

How did your selections fair betting for the place?

A couple of quick comments. I'd be a little concerned about the run of outs. Be honest with yourself and consider how long you would be prepared to continue to bet a selection method that had just produced 24 losers in a row. My point is, there's nothing saying your selection method won't have a run of 24 outs, followed by one average priced winner, follwed by another run of 24 outs. For confidence sake, you might find it worthwhile to sacrifice some profit, in return for a better strike rate, thus reducing the length of run of outs, and thereby increasing your confidence in continuing to back your selections while in the midst of a run of outs.

For instance, you mention that your max div was $37.80. That's great, and while I'm sure everyone loves to snag a longshot from time to time, my question would be if you ruled out any selection with a pre-post price of say $16 or higher, would it reduce your run of outs, and increase your overall strike rate? If so, then I feel that such a rule should be something to consider implementing, even if it results in a lower p.o.t.

Conversely, you might also consider ruling out any selections paying less than $3. Given that favourites only win 30% of the time, it seems unlikely your selections paying less than $3 would have contributed very much in terms of p.o.t.

I can't really offer much more advice without knowing more about your selection method. Just work on increasing your strike rate, and make sure your staking method isn't too aggressive; make sure it can safely withstand a longer than expected run of outs. Betting a percentage of the bank is what I recommend, re-calculating after each race (reduces exposure in run of outs, and makes the most of when the winners return).

Best of luck to you.

[stugots]

Hi Silver & Sands, thanks for the reply

the run of outs are a concern - 24 has happened twice, the average is around 6-7, but over the 10 months so far it has always rebounded quickly

re the longshots, had a closer look at sp strike rates & came up with the following (unitab prices) -

< $10sp - s/r 21%
$10.0 - $19.9 - s/r 14%
$20&> - s/r 13%

& the best profit range was the $20&> - 15 winners in this group - the poorest performing range was <$10, did surprise me when i saw that, but still showing a healthy pot.

i am betting 2% of bank non reducing & recalculating after every new high is reached, so far so good

just for a laugh i may start posting the selections, if the forum cant break it i may be on a winner...


oh & the place strike rate to date is 38% & very low pot, havent put much work into it as it has presented as a win only method from the start

[Stix]

Stugots

I had to look twice, I though I posted those stats.......!! http://www.propun.com.au/racing_forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Those stats look incredibly similar to one that I have (and think I did post here at one point), albeit the period is over a number of years and not months like yours are:

Sel 495
Wins 98 SR 19.8%
Plc 198 SR 40.0%
WP 424 units 85% POT
PP 55 units 11% POT

This year stats:
Sel 36
Wins 5 SR 13.9%
Plc 12 SR 33.3%
WP 68 units 188% POT
PP 5 units 13% POT

I bet each way as I like the warm cuddle of a collect http://www.propun.com.au/racing_forums/images/smilies/wink.gif
Yes, it would of cost me on the win side, but it's the method that I'm most comfortable with.

Good Luck with it.....

[stugots]

stix, ive got one of those 'twilight zone' feelings:)

but seriously, thanks for the post, i take it your method also snags its fair share of longer priced winners? & do you mind revealing your worst run of outs?

good to see a similar set of stats

[Silver_and_sand]

Personally, I would be quite concerned about those 13% and 14% strike rates for those selections > $10. Even though those selections seem to be rewarding your method for now, you must admit that when considering their lower strike rate, they have the potential to make your method come undone in the long run.

If you really want to keep betting the longshots, why not remove those selections that are > $10 from this method and let them be a separate longshot method that uses a separate betting bank. You could use a staking plan of 2% per bet for the method with selections paying < $10, and maybe you could use a more conservative staking plan of 1% reducing for the longshot method.

Best of luck to you.

[wesmip1]

Here is my 2 cents worth ...

Anything less than a 25% strike rate is going to be hard to follow unless it is automated. If you get say 1 bet a day and have a run of 24 outs then that is almost a month without any winners. This is going to be hard for most people to follow.

The problem with low strike rate systems is that they go pear shaped very easily as you really need at least 2000+ selections to even consider them.

This is stuff I have found from personal experience. It doesn't mean your system will go the same way but just be wary of the potential for it.

Good Luck.

[Michal]

Long shot system need at least 500 units bank, betting 1% of the bank with something that has 2-5% strike rate is suicide. IMO

anything less and you'll crack when the run of outs excededs 98 which is quite possible with 2% strike rate ......

also be prepared for a world of pain, frustration, self questioning .

Also longshots arent worth it for place you'll look like you are doing better and then 2 wins later you'll be that far infront with the win that it will be painfull to watch.

Michal

[stugots]

i hear you Michal, however i wouldnt call this a longshot system, the winners odds to date are evenly spread between $1.5 & $35, the selection method is not influenced by price in any way

& by '2-5%', im assuming you mean '25%' not '2% to 5%'?

not sure what others think but if ones not betting the top 1-3 in the market each bet, then a win strike rate in the range of 15% to 20% is more than acceptable, thoughts?

[Michal]

I was refereing to Silver and sand's post regarding spliting your bets that is all.

[Bhagwan]

Hi Stugots,
Here is a staking plan that fits in with the stats you have given.
It will recover very quickly with only a small number of winners.
Seeing that you average div is approx $10

It can handle several runs of 24 outs, even if they follow one another after a single winner, which can & does happen in punting.

$550 Bank needed.
10 lots of of each group
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
e.g.
$1 x 10
$2 x 10
$3 x 10 ect

This allows for 100 outs.

We only need approx 3/4 the odds of level stakes betting to break even.
e.g.
30th bet would be $3 at 20/1 to break even as opposed to 30/1 at level stakes.

This may take 2 or more winners in your price range to clear the decks.
Where as one would still be behind at level stakes.


Repeat bet if a winner does not recover all outstandings.
I place ab "R" next to my bet when this occures so as to save any confusion.
We go to the next level up once we have 10 outs for that group.

Start at the beginning once all losses are recovered.

With this plan, one can recover the losses in almost half the No. of bets.
Allowing more opportunity & time to make a profit.

This plan should be looked at as a quick loss recovery plan as opposed to a profit making plan, there is a slight difference being the objective is to break even where possible & not push the envelop which is what most staking plans try to do & this is where most punters become unstuck.

I feel more punters have had their biggest losses following certain staking plans more so than following a set of selections at level stakes betting.

So the suggestion here, is if one is using any staking plan, start at the beginning as soon as all losses are recovered & dont push the envelop to make a pre ordained profit.
The profit will follow at a lower, but at a safer level of exposure.

Cheers.

[stugots]

thanks Bhagwan, but can you elaborate on that plan a bit as im not understanding it at this time (sunday morning, need i say more?)

had my 2nd coffee & read it again

so the 1st 10 bets are @ $1 ea
2nd 10 @ $2
& so on until winner is struck
then if in front start back at 10 @ $1
if still behind continue with current sequence - say i was at bet 6 of $4 sequence, my next bet is bet 7 @ $4 & continue going up the levels until in profit

ahh cafine, my one true love

[Bhagwan]

Hi Stugots,
Sounds like someone spiked your drink with alcohol when you weren't looking.
I wouldn't drink there anyone.

You got the idea in one my friend.

If a winner is struck that does not clear the slate, repeat that bet, in the sequence, by placing an "R" next to it . We don't count this as an out in the sequence of 10 outs.
e.g. If there were 3 winners in a sequence of 13 bets say at $3 each, that did not clear the slate, we would go up one step to $4 because we have had 10 outs not including the winners, which should have an "R" (Repeat) next to them.

If 10 outs for that sequence, not including any winners, we go up the next step up.

Cheers.

[Bhagwan]

I forgot to mention that if one wished for the staking plan to be more aggressive , one could continue with the 10 bet sequences, before moving up to the next step, win , lose or draw, not repeating any bets, until it is forced into profit.

Then starting again at the beginning of $1.

This strategy makes it recover even faster, but at a slightly higher exposure to risk.

One has 100 shots to make it happen.

It will recover faster than any level stakes strategy, if the winners keep popping up within the 100 bets.

One would need combined odds of 55/1 around the 100th bet to put it into profit, as opposed level stakes, which would need combined odds of 100/1 to get it to profit.


Cheers.

[stugots]

thanks for that plan Bhagwan,

ive been running it in conjunction with my usual 2% of bank non reducing & your plan has easily outperformed that method without much greater risk to the bank, max drawdowns during the period being approx the same

will continue running both until the new year & see where were at

[stugots]

i should add that betting such a plan of course means being hands on, must be around to adjust bet levels as required but as there are usually only 4-5 bet a day, when unable to spend the afternoon in front of my pc, i place all bets on within the current level.

that hasnt really hurt other than being 1 level below where i should have been when a smallish winner struck, different story tho if that 30/1 shot had hit.

there also was another run of 20 outs, so the max to date is still 24 with over 600 bets now, which has me thinking of adjusting your plan to 5 or 6 lots of 10 bets. if the bank breaks then start afresh, any thoughts?

[Mr Quaddie]

It begs the questions.

What is the best staking plan for a $500 bank?

If playing the win-place game, what percentage should of the bank should be used?

What things to look for in the form guide to narrow selections?

[Bhagwan]

Generally speaking , if one can work out what their average SR is say over 150 bets min.

Go to one of the theoretical expected runs of outs sites.
Then multiply that theoretical run of outs by 4

e.g.
Say ones average SR is 20%
The expected run of outs is 31 outs in a row.
That's not to say that one could have 1 winner then another 31 outs in a row, it can & does happen, so we allow for this by multiplying our 31 x 4 = 124

So we should be betting to 124th of our bank at level stakes.

Some stats.
This also applies to place betting as well.
70%---6 outs
60%---8
50%---10
45%---12
40%---14
35% ---16
30% ---20
25% ---24
20% ---31
15% ---42
10% ---65

Cheers.

[Mr Quaddie]

124th, so that is for a $500 bank, $500/124 = around $4 a bet.